Civil Service: EU Nationals

Lord Trimble: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are under an obligation by European law or European directives to grant European Union nationals access to posts in the United Kingdom Civil Service; and whether they have any plans to do so.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the EC treaty guarantees to workers from each member state the right freely to reside and take up employment in other member states. In the United Kingdom, the European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 1991 and the European Economic Area Act 1993 had the effect of opening up Crown employment to nationals of the European economic area with the exception of those posts requiring special allegiance to the state, which are reserved for UK nationals.

Lord Trimble: I thank the Minister for that Answer. The Northern Ireland Office claims that EU legislation requires it to open up the latter posts, requiring special allegiance, to Irish nationals, as agreed at the recent meeting at St Andrews. The Northern Ireland Civil Service is small, with little interchange with the rest of the United Kingdom, but it has nevertheless maintained its ethos and integrity during difficult times. As it now faces a unique challenge in its future political masters, this is not the time for competition from a larger body which does not share the same ethos, particularly on political independence. Nor would such a change be consistent with the Good Friday agreement. Does the Minister not agree that the parachuting-in of Ministers with no organic connection with Northern Ireland society should not now be replaced by parachuting in similarly handicapped Permanent Secretaries with potentially conflicting interests?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Permanent Secretary, for one, would be a reserved post, so there would be no question of "parachuting in". I recognise the implications for Northern Ireland. What is at stake for the British Civil Service, however, is the ability to tap into the pool of talent represented by those from other countries who have the right to live and work here, and increasing the availability of such people for posts in the Civil Service while recognising that certain posts and functions, such as the Security Service, will necessarily be reserved for British nationals.

Lord Soley: My Lords, would it not be a serious mistake to isolate Northern Ireland from Civil Service developments elsewhere? I have always had my doubts about the advantages of the 1922 restrictions limiting access to the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The people of Northern Ireland deserve, and are able to get, the best people for the best job, wherever they come from in the UK and the European Union.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend is knowledgeable about Northern Ireland. He will recognise that that kind of thinking led the Prime Minister to say in October that he thought it timely that we regularised the rules on aliens seeking opportunities in the Civil Service, both in Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. That is why an Order in Council is being proposed, which will be subject to parliamentary consideration, to give effect to this.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I recognise that there is broader issue for the British Civil Service as a whole, but does the Minister accept that we on these Benches welcome the open attitude of Her Majesty's Government to recruiting to major Whitehall departments nationals from other EU member states, some of whom rise to quite senior positions? There is no question of mixed loyalties. Could not the same open principle be progressively applied to Northern Ireland? It is not just a question of southern Irish nationals, but others from elsewhere in the European Union. We read in the newspapers, for example, that some of the Catholics joining the Police Service of Northern Ireland are Polish.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Order in Council will apply to Northern Ireland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom. Individuals will be chosen on their merits and will be selected in accordance with the Civil Service rules on selection. We are conscious that 79,000 posts in Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs out of 97,000 public service posts in the Civil Service are reserved. That does not make a great deal of sense when we need to fill the posts with people with the requisite talent and ability; and that is why the order is being introduced.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, the Minister has not said what examination successes those who are given these posts have to achieve prior to their engagement. I invite him to do so now.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness will recognise that a massive number of skills are necessary across the Civil Service. At the highest level, the Civil Service examinations are regarded as among the most testing in the country, but at lower levels, different tests are applied. I assure the House that anyone who applies for a Civil Service post will be treated fairly, but he or she will get the post only if they merit it.

Lord Foster of Bishop Auckland: My Lords, should we not pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, for his enormous contribution to trying to bring peace to Northern Ireland? Is it not a great shame that he was not there to see his efforts come to full fruition? While we are doing that, can we not find it within our hearts to praise the Prime Minister for keeping at this most difficult of tasks?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I shall resist the second invitation, but the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, stands on the record.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government think that the British people would have voted in 1975 to remain in what they were assured was a common market if they had known that they were voting for this sort of arrangement?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, this sort of arrangement obtains in France. Does the noble Lord think that the French are any less jealous of their position or any less nationalistic than the British?

EU: Mobile Telephones

Lord Teverson: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What view they are taking in the Council of Ministers concerning the proposal by Commissioner Reding to reduce the costs of mobile phone calls across European borders.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have supported the European Commission's objective of reducing the cost of international mobile roaming phone calls for consumers in Europe. In order to ensure that this objective is achieved, we have worked closely with the European Commission, other member states and the European Parliament. Our aim is to achieve a solution that is beneficial for consumers, will maintain competition and innovation in this important sector, and is practical to implement. We have received considerable support and co-operation from other member states in working towards this goal and look forward to that continuing. We think that an agreement on the regulation is possible before the summer.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As he will be well aware, a handful of operators have great power in the European mobile telephone market. Like many other noble Lords who have made calls abroad or called home from abroad, I have been astounded by some of the extortionate charges that appeared on my bill the next month. Do the Government really intend to back this legislative instrument laid down by the Commission, or is the intention to dilute its present form?

Lord Truscott: My Lords, we support the development of this regulation and hope, as I said, to have agreement by June. The proposals, which we support, are anticipated to cut the cost of mobile roaming calls by about 40 to 60 per cent. We are proposing a package that includes a wholesale cap on prices, a consumer protection tariff and an average retail target.

Lord Maxton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the rapid expansion of low-cost Voice over Internet Protocol services will automatically force phone companies to reduce costs because they are provided free over the internet using both computers and, increasingly, mobile phones? Without any interference from the EU, that will happen.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Those sorts of competitive pressures will bring down prices in this market, and telephony technology is developing very rapidly.

Lord Freeman: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a Select Committee of your Lordships' House has just begun an inquiry into mobile phone international charges and hopes to report before Easter? Will he therefore talk to the business managers and seek to ensure that there is a debate in this House before the European Parliament votes? That is not normally the situation with debates on Select Committee reports, which normally occur after the horse has bolted.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, I believe that this is an issue for the usual channels. I will certainly bear in mind the noble Lord's suggestion.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, I declare an interest in the same inquiry and the same sub-committee. Will the Minister renew the Government's congratulations to the European Commission? After it announced this investigation into roaming charges, three companies are abolishing the charges and two more are substantially reducing them. The Commission has now announced a drive against excessive bank charges on cards and accounts and to ordinary customers. Will the Government act in the same way with the Commission on the bank inquiry as well?

Lord Truscott: My Lords, we welcome the action which the Commission is taking to bring down prices for consumers in all fields.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a 40 to 60 per cent reduction in charges is much too little? My last bill was £7.50 for downloading just 1 megabyte, which is nothing these days. Surely the Government need to do much more to get charges down to a competitive rate.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, that is what we are currently discussing in negotiating the reductions. We need to ensure that the industry remains competitive, and there is a wide range of tariffs to give consumers a choice, but of course we want to achieve the best result we can.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, on a day on which Mr Sarkozy is campaigning for the French elections among 300,000 French citizens and voters in London, and when we already have perhaps the same number of British citizens living or owning homes in France, is it not time to pay much more attention to reducing the cost of all these types of cross-border transactions?

Lord Truscott: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. That is why we are supporting this regulation and negotiating to achieve a good result for consumers not only in the UK but across the European Union.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my GP recently gave me her private telephone number and I rang it to ask for some sleeping pills. Her reply was, "I am in Cairo". Who will pay for that call?

Lord Truscott: My Lords, I am sorry to tell the noble Baroness that you both will.

London: Congestion Charge

Lord Trefgarne: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have made a recent assessment of the implementation of Section 295 and Schedule 23 ("Road user charging") of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, implementation of the central London congestion charging scheme, including any extension to the scheme, and associated monitoring are matters for Transport for London and the mayor. The department continues to monitor with interest the impact of the scheme and its development.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he not agree—following the departmental scrutiny to which he referred, I hope that he does—that one aspect of the congestion charge remains unjust? That is the arrangement by which those of us who pay in advance and then for perfectly good reasons sometimes do not enter the congestion charge area have no means of getting a refund or even of transferring the payment to another day. Some people, especially those who pay weekly in advance, suffer seriously from that difficulty. Will the Minister draw that matter to the attention of the mayor?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that it is the mayor's responsibility. Of course I undertake to draw his comments to the attention of the mayor's office.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, has any progress been made in recovering payment from the embassies in London that have so far declined to pay, in particular the United States?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord anticipates my answer. It is, rightly, a matter for the mayor, but I shall make certain inquiries.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Transport for London has already said that congestion will increase with the increase in the zone and that there will not be adequate recompense from the extension to the congestion zone? In view of that, what is the Minister's view of road pricing in general and specifically in central London?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am slightly surprised by the noble Baroness's comments on the impact of the western extension. The data presented to us suggest that congestion in the area will fall by about 15 to 20 per cent and that traffic will be reduced by about 13 to 17 per cent, so there will be the beneficial impact of reduced CO2 emissions, particulate emissions and nitrous oxide emissions. On those grounds, the scheme is clearly beneficial. I do not accept at all the noble Baroness's presumptions.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, what progress are the Government making generally on road pricing, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, referred, and, in particular, lorry use charging, especially for foreign lorries, which pay nothing to use our roads? The state of repair of those lorries is awful. The latest VOSA report shows that 42.7 per cent of lorries with trailers stopped by VOSA were unroadworthy. That scandal should be tackled.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I certainly accept the noble Lord's concern; the department is giving it close attention. The noble Lord followed up what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said about national road pricing schemes. We continue to monitor how congestion charging is working. We believe that a national road pricing scheme would be a very significant move forward, but we gain valuable practical experience from local schemes and want to continue monitoring those before we make any further policy developments in that area.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, as Mr Livingstone has ignored the representations made by Wandsworth Borough Council about the added congestion, the great inconvenience and serious environmental damage that will be caused as traffic from the west is forced to travel several extra miles to cross the river at Chelsea Bridge, have the Government any powers to intervene to prevent that and many other wholly avoidable consequences of an ill thought-out scheme?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I know that the party opposite takes exception to the development of congestion charging. It made lots of allegations about the potential impact when the scheme was introduced back in 2003. Many of those attacks have not been found to be absolutely accurate. We think that the scheme is working extremely well and look forward to watching carefully how the extension works.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, one of the benefits of the congestion charge has been a massive increase in the number of cyclists on the road, which has major environmental benefits. The Department for Transport seems lacking in its promotion of things to do with bicycles, although Transport for London has done a great deal of work. What are the Government doing to educate the Department for Transport in the benefits of bicycling?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought it was now a given that people were very keen to get on their bike and travel in central London. The Leader of the Opposition is very keen on cycling, as are we. I like cycling; lots of people cycle in Brighton. So, yes, we are very enthusiastic about cycling; we are pleased to see that it is more widespread.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, did the Minister see the No. 10 website this morning and the number of people who have signed the petition against road pricing, which now stands at 610,000? Will the Government take some notice of that petition, and if not, why not?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I look at the No. 10 website from time to time. I always find it an instructive, learning experience. I am aware of the petition to which the noble Lord has referred, but I think we have to look at the bigger picture. Clearly there have been many benefits, not least the increased use of public transport and a reduction in pollution in central London as a result of congestion charging. As I said, we shall continue to monitor and support the scheme as it is.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, the Minister has not really answered the point made by my noble friend Lady Hanham. The Government announced earlier that they would introduce an enabling Bill on road charging, which somehow seems to have got lost. The Minister might like to comment on that. Surely if they did have such a Bill, it might be better to abandon congestion charging in London and go ahead with road charging, which would levy variable charges in various parts. As the Government are so keen on those charges for London, it would be better to have variable charging according to congestion in that area. Perhaps the Minister could comment properly rather than give an evasive answer.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have not been evasive; I have tried to provide as much policy information as possible. Clearly we have a policy disagreement here. The noble Lord and his party dislike the congestion charge. We think it is working well, and we continue to support the mayor and his efforts.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, when my noble friend is next in conversation with the Mayor of London, which clearly he needs to be as a result of this exchange, could he ask him how many people will become exempt from paying the congestion charge as a result of the extension of the congestion charge area? It would also be very interesting to know, although I doubt the information is available, how many of those people drive the so-called Chelsea tractors.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I should be very happy to make those inquiries.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, could we have more cycle lanes and better policing of cyclists who break the law and behave anti-socially?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is an important issue. I support cycle lanes, as do the Government, and the noble Lord is right to draw attention to enforcement issues.

Taxation: Air Passenger Duty

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the legal basis on which increased rates of air passenger duty will apply from 1 February 2007.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the rate changes will be enacted in the Finance Bill in the normal way and will have the full force of the law. The way in which the Government have announced and implemented the change is in line with parliamentary conventions.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, we have counsel's opinion that, unless and until Parliament actually approves the air passenger duty increases retrospectively, there is no obligation on the airlines to pay. It is therefore unsurprising that passengers are confused about whether they will have to pay the extra tax if the airlines ask for it. Will the Minister give clear advice from the Government to airline passengers when they turn up to fly from Thursday morning onwards? Should they pay the tax or not?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is the airlines which will pay the tax. They must decide whether to absorb the tax or to charge passengers. Is the requirement legal? Of course it is. Anti-avoidance measures that deal with illegality generally follow this form—namely, there is an announcement with immediate effect—otherwise they would not be effective. Other measures similar to the airline passenger duty have also been announced. Last year, the oil companies were subject to an additional tax in exactly the measure applied to the airlines.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, is it the Government's intention that the tax should raise revenue or reduce carbon emissions by reducing the number of flights, and which does my noble friend expect to be more successful?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend is well versed on taxation and will recognise that it can produce a dual benefit. It can increase resources for deployment on public transport and other environmentally worthy measures. It can also reduce demand because of the price increase. We estimate that by 2010, 0.75 million tonnes of carbon per year will have been reduced through the air passenger duty.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, to what will the revenues be devoted? Will all the money collected from the airlines go into the Treasury's exchequer for general use or will it have a definite environmental purpose?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, this Government intend, as one of their crucial strategies for dealing with climate change, to increase the use of public transport. We will invest the resources available from APD in environmental measures and in increasing public transport. In the three years since 2004, we have increased in real terms expenditure on public transport by 4.5 per cent.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is not the test of the worth of the opinion referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, really whether an airline is prepared to push the matter in the courts?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I indicated, it is the airlines which are legally obliged to pay the tax. We are aware that the airlines have been concerned about how the tax has been imposed, but I have not yet heard any airline suggest that it would test the matter in court. If any did, there are precedents against it.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Minister has just stated that this tax will reduce the amount of carbon emitted by airlines, but this is on the same day that the second runway has been announced at Stansted. Does the Minister accept that the Government's policy seems to be to raise revenue for this, but at the same time to increase the number of flights over British airspace?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, of course we have to strike a balance between our environmental objectives.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we have to strike a balance. I hear the Liberal Democrats laughing, but do they take seriously this proposition? We have to strike a balance between the necessary growth of the economy and the wishes of the people regarding aviation. There must be a balance between that and pursuing measures which guarantee that Britain fulfils its role in reducing areas of climate change and carbon emissions. The Government are on a strategy to do that. We can certainly see an increase in aviation, which, the noble Lord will understand, makes a very small contribution to emissions: 2.5 per cent of our total emissions. I would expect the Liberal Democrats to recognise that that is relatively small compared with other aspects that we have to tackle. We have to strike a balance between that and the needs of the economy.

Lord Vinson: My Lords, the noble Lord has been good enough to almost answer my question. Instead of making the airlines a whipping boy, would it not be more sensible to tackle the real causes of CO2, which are carbon fuels, and to try increasingly to make this, like France, an all-electric country? We could have electric trains, and electric heating and lighting, for which we have the technology already. If we were to go nuclear we could reduce CO2 emissions by so much that we would not have to restrict the cheapest and best form of travel of the 21st century by overregulation. There are better ways of tackling climate change than just fiddling on the periphery.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, tackling aviation is not fiddling on the periphery because aviation emissions are set to increase unless the expansion of air travel is moderated. Of course, air passenger duty will play a small part in that. I agree with the noble Lord that there are other areas vastly more important than aviation, which is why the Government are committed to pursuing strategies that deal with the big sources of emission.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I do not disagree with the principle of increasing air passenger duty as a contribution to controlling climate change, but has my noble friend any comment to offer about the letter a number of Members of the House have received from the Association of Independent Tour Operators pointing out that, while the airlines are able to impose a surcharge to meet the increased duty, tour operators are bound by the European Union package travel directive and effectively prevented from doing so? As a result, they are being discriminated against. I declare an interest as the chairman of a consultancy that advises the travel industry.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we recognise that there are some difficulties for the tourist industry as a consequence of the tax. British Airways, for example, is absorbing the tax and thus putting itself in the same position as tour operators. For most travel within Europe, which constitutes the vast bulk of travel affected by the tax, the sums involved will not be massive. However, my noble friend has articulated the need to deal with climate change and will recognise that, while the tax is marginal to that, it is nevertheless a contributory factor and sends a signal to people.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, a Statement will be repeated later today. My noble friend Lord Davies will be on his feet again to repeat a Statement on the Casino Advisory Panel report. The Statement will be taken at a convenient time after 5 pm.

Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL]

Report received.
	Clause 1 [The National Consumer Council and its territorial committees]:

Lord Truscott: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Clause 1 , page 2, line 2, at end insert—
	"(3A) The territorial committees may exercise, on behalf of the Council, the following functions—
	(a) in the case of the Scottish Consumer Council, the Council's functions under sections 7 to 16, 18 and 20 to 25, so far as they are exercisable in relation to Scotland; (b) in the case of the Welsh Consumer Council, the Council's functions under those sections, so far as they are exercisable in relation to Wales; (c) in the case of the Northern Ireland Postal Services Committee— (i) the Council's functions under sections 7 to 11, 14 to 16, 18, 20 and 22 to 25 so far as they are exercisable in relation to Northern Ireland, and (ii) the Council's functions under section 21 so far as they are exercisable in relation to consumer matters which relate to relevant postal services in relation to Northern Ireland.
	(3B) For the purpose of facilitating or improving co-ordination in relation to the carrying out of its functions, the Council may from time to time—
	(a) impose restrictions or conditions on the exercise by a territorial committee of a function by virtue of subsection (3A); (b) give a territorial committee general or specific directions relating to the exercise of a function by virtue of that subsection.
	(3C) Nothing in subsection (3A) prevents the Council from exercising any of its functions referred to in that subsection."

Lord Truscott: My Lords, I rise to speak to the government amendments to Clauses 1 and 37. In so doing I wish to acknowledge the thoughtful and incisive contributions made in Committee by the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Lady O'Cathain, and my noble friends Lord Williams of Elvel, Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan, Lord Borrie and Lord Whitty. I am grateful to noble Lords for the constructive way in which they have conducted all our deliberations on the Bill.
	We have considered carefully the points made in respect of the functions to be accorded to the Scottish Consumer Council, the Welsh Consumer Council and the Northern Ireland Postal Services Committee. The amendments to Clause 1 are designed to provide the territorial committees with the power to exercise the key functions of the council and to enable the committees to exercise these functions within their relevant territories. In defining the functions to be given to the territorial committees under this amendment, I believe that we have gone further than some noble Lords may have envisaged in Committee where there was a focus on the core functions described in the Bill: the representative function, the research function and the information function, as provided in Clauses 7 to 9. This amendment provides these functions to the Scottish Consumer Council and the Welsh Consumer Council, and in addition provides the committees with the powers of investigation set out in Clauses 10 to 15 inclusive, the power to prepare and publish reports in Clause 16, the function of providing advice, information and guidance in Clause 18, the power to co-operate and give assistance in Clause 20, the power to undertake voluntary activities in Clause 21 and the supplementary powers set out in Clause 22. Information gathering powers in Clauses 23 to 26 are also provided to these territorial committees.
	The powers given to the Northern Ireland Postal Services Committee also extend to the core functions described in the Bill: the representative function, the research function and the information function as provided in Clauses 7 to 9. In addition, the committee is provided with the powers of investigation in Clauses 10 and 11, the function of referring matters to the Postal Services Commission in Clause 14, the function in Clause 15 of making investigations into public post offices, the power to make reports in Clause 16, the provision of advice, information and guidance contained in Clause 18, the power to co-operate and give assistance in Clause 20 and the supplementary powers and information functions described in Clauses 22 to 25.
	The committee will also be able to exercise the functions of the council under Clause 21—voluntary activities—in relation to relevant postal services in Northern Ireland. In addition, the amendments provide for the council to facilitate or improve co-ordination between the council and the Scottish and Welsh Consumer Councils and the Northern Ireland Postal Services Committee by imposing restrictions or conditions on the territorial committees' exercise of functions and giving directions relating to the exercise of any function to the territorial committees.
	There are very few instances where the functions of the council are not exercisable by the territorial committees and I should like to take this opportunity to explain to your Lordships' House why this should be. First, in Clauses 4 to 6 there is an obligation for the council to provide a statutory forward work programme and annual report. It is anticipated that the territorial committees will have a very important role in the production of both the forward work programme and the annual report, which will incorporate their proposed activities and reported activities as appropriate and as agreed with the council. Consequently the statutory requirement would remain unchanged by the amendment.
	Secondly, Clause 19 imposes a duty on the council to enter into co-operation agreements with designated bodies, including the Office of Fair Trading, the Financial Services Consumer Panel and the Ofcom Consumer Panel. We do not consider it necessary or desirable to replicate that requirement for each territorial committee because it would be unduly cumbersome to have a multiplicity of co-operation arrangements.
	Thirdly, there is a function of the council in Clause 26 to provide information where required to do so by an authorised person. I hope noble Lords will agree that it would be onerous for the person making the request to be required to make the request for information to the council and each of its territorial committees. For that reason we have not provided that function to the territorial committees.
	The amendments include a proposal to divide Clause 1 into two clauses for the sake of clarity, which I hope will find favour with noble Lords. Amendment No. 42 represents a consequential change to Clause 37 reflecting the proposed allocation of functions to the Northern Ireland Postal Services Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for at least listening to the arguments that my noble friend Lord O'Neill and I put forward in Grand Committee. I am advised that the amendments go at least three-quarters of the way towards what the Welsh Consumer Council wanted. I am informed by my noble friend Lord O'Neill that the Scots take the same view.
	I have a slight problem with the proposed new subsection (3A) in Amendment No. 1. This allows the national council to impose restrictions or conditions on the exercise of a function by a territorial committee by virtue of subsection (3A). In other words, the national council can at any time more or less pull the plug. I should be grateful if my noble friend, when he winds up, will explore with us exactly what that means.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I was not able to take part in the proceedings so far on the Bill but I have read them with interest. The Minister has virtually rewritten this part of the Bill. Why on earth did the Government pay so little attention to the requirements of devolution that they did not do a lot of this in the first place? It seems to be an extraordinary waste of parliamentary time. Nevertheless, it is excellent that he has listened to the arguments and I am sure that everyone will be grateful for it.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister knows, in line with the noble Baroness's comments, there is more joy in this House for one sinner that repenteth. I was worried initially about the clauses on devolution but the discussions the department has had with Welsh and Scottish interests in the mean time have led to a very good solution which largely reflects the practice that has been conducted, informally and without statutory basis, by the National Consumer Council and its Welsh and Scottish counterparts over the past few years. In that sense, the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Williams may be slightly exaggerated. In practice, this reflects how the Welsh council operates now and how an expanded body would operate in the future. It is a very successful conclusion of this part of the Bill.

Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan: My Lords, the correspondence I have had with the Scottish Consumer Council representatives "as is" tends to suggest that they are very happy with the outcome of these discussions. It is to the Minister's credit that he took on board the anxieties of a number of us and the consumer councils in Scotland and Wales. They will now be able to operate effectively with the devolved Assembly and Parliament. How successful these things are will depend on experience, but the constructive approach adopted by the Minister is certainly giving the proposal a fair wind. My colleagues in Scotland are sympathetic to his intentions and objectives.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Whitty and Lord O'Neill for their kind words and to my noble friend Lord Williams for his conditional kind words, saying that we have gone a long way to meeting the points he raised in Committee.
	New subsection (3A), which my noble friend Lord Williams mentioned, is about co-ordinating issues and consumer representation that transcend national boundaries. There is no attempt to rule from the centre, as it were. Individual councils will have the full role that is intended in the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, the department has been in contact with the consumer councils in Scotland and Wales, and they have supported these amendments fully.
	To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, we have moved on these points, but then that just shows that Members of the Grand Committee were doing their job. They made their points; we took them on board and brought forward these amendments as a result.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Truscott: moved Amendments Nos. 2 and 3:
	Clause 1, page 2, leave out line 3 and insert—
	"(4) A territorial committee also has the following purposes—"
	Clause 1, Divide Clause 1 into two clauses, the first (Establishment of the National Consumer Council and its territorial committees) to consist of subsections (1) to (3) and (5) and the second (The territorial committees) to consist of subsections (3A) to (4)
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 2 ["Consumer" and "consumer matters"]:

Lord De Mauley: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Clause 2, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
	"( ) a "consumer" includes a person who purchases, uses or receives goods or services for the purpose of their own business;"

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, I return to this amendment following Committee, in part because I am still not wholly satisfied with the Minister's answer, and in part because I believe that getting sole traders and small businesses involved in the context of the National Consumer Council will be a huge challenge. That challenge should be addressed by the provisions of the Bill.
	It is important to remember that our existing legislation has not normally treated sole traders and small businesses as consumers. The Federation of Small Businesses raised its concerns in 2002 in its response to the European Commission's Green Paper on consumer protection regarding the then forthcoming unfair commercial practices directive. It raised many detailed objections to the directive, the main theme of which was that the Green Paper failed to understand the pressures faced by small businesses, and that it overestimated their capacity. It stated that,
	"we are frightened that failure to include small businesses within the EU definition will lead to the removal of these protections at the national level".
	Small businesses rely on postal services and, especially, on energy provision. Where they are let down by their providers, their whole businesses can be threatened. Energywatch and the Federation of Small Businesses have launched a campaign to get better treatment of small businesses as consumers. I am concerned that if small businesses are not specified as consumers, they will be neglected.
	The Minister's response to the amendment in Committee did not quite answer the point. He merely stated:
	"The definition of consumer in the Bill deliberately does not exclude any class of consumer".—[Official Report, 18/12/06; col. GC170.]
	Yet I am sure he will acknowledge that merely omitting a reference to sole traders and small businesses as not themselves covered by the Bill does not endorse them as consumers. The implication of what he said is that he is concerned about specifically including them on grounds that to do so would beg the question of who else must then be specified. But who else would need to be specified?
	We have the perfect opportunity to clarify in the Bill the inclusive nature of the NCC. It is vital that sole traders and small businesses are aware that they are considered entirely valid users of Consumer Direct. We highlighted in Committee how important it is for small business and sole traders to correct problems such as energy disconnection as soon as possible for the sake of their businesses and livelihoods.
	I hope that the Minister will accept the principle behind the amendment. If he cannot accept it in its present form, I hope that he will come back at Third Reading with a form of words, perhaps with an enabling definition, which would make this clear to both the NCC and the sole-trader and small-business consumer. I beg to move.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, I question the usefulness and desirability of the amendment. Indeed, I am rather surprised that the Opposition have brought it forward again on Report in more or less the same form as it was in Grand Committee. When the amendment was moved in Grand Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, she said, as did the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, today, that it was intended to ensure that sole traders and small businesses are considered consumers for the purposes of the National Consumer Council. However, even at a glance, it can be seen that the amendment is not confined to sole traders and small businesses; it is wide enough to cover the largest of corporations, whether they are ICI or Tesco, buying things for their own business.
	I am surprised that noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench, which today includes the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who is a distinguished former chairman of the NCC, consider that the National Consumer Council should spend any of its time looking after the interests of our major corporations, which are surely well capable of looking after themselves through their adequate legal staff and so on. I wonder whether their intention to assist small businesses and sole traders is helpfully improved by the broad wording of the amendment.
	Clause 2 defines "consumer" as,
	"a person who purchases, uses or receives, in Great Britain, goods or services".
	We all know that in law a "person" includes bodies corporate or corporate persons so, whether a small business is a partnership or incorporated as a company, it is a consumer when it purchases goods. The disadvantage of the amendment is that including especially words to demonstrate that businesses are consumers as well would encourage the National Consumer Council to consider their needs in buying goods and services as at least equal to those of the man or woman in the street purchasing goods in all the manifold ways available to us. That is not an appropriate function for the NCC.
	Many small businesses, although they are far less able to help themselves than a major corporation, belong to trade associations. One very often hears them talking on the radio and elsewhere on the interests of small businesses, whereas the ordinary man or woman in the street does not have, as an ordinary consumer, any such trade association except for any voluntary bodies that they may join, such as Which?, the Consumers' Association or the National Consumer Council.
	This is an unnecessary and undesirable amendment, and I hope that it is not pursued to a Division.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I declare an interest as a sole trader and member of the Federation of Small Businesses. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, for raising this point, although we have not added our names to the amendment, for some of the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, such as reservations about the size of the business and so on.
	Between Committee and Report a problem I have had as a sole trader has arisen—quite fortuitously, in the light of this debate, as it has put into sharp focus the sort of problems that occur. Over a year ago I started my small business, and it took a year for the electricity supplier to resolve who was the electricity supplier, because although we had applied very clearly to a supplier, the bill had not been switched to our account. When we finally got a bill after 14 months, it was large enough to put a business under.
	The Federation of Small Businesses is very helpful in such situations in giving advice across the board, but how the NCC will work with such organisations is crucial. Very small businesses are as vulnerable as individual consumers. Very often, a sole person working in a business is pushed for time to sort out such thorny problems. The noble Lord has raised an important issue, and it would be useful if the Minister could explain how he envisages the provisions working for smaller businesses.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for affording us the opportunity to debate this important issue. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Borrie for his expert analysis. I shall refer later to some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. I am mindful of the significant expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, in this field, as a former chair of the National Consumer Council, and I shall try to address the issues that she raised, to which the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley referred.
	The amendment affords me the opening to explain the scope of the role of the new council in representing consumers' interests. There will be no inherent constraints on the consumers which the new council may represent. I believe that it is essential that the council should have the opportunity to prioritise its work according to consumer detriment, while taking into account the important functions which we have set out in the Bill, for example on vulnerable consumers. The council will need to consider carefully where it can best utilise its resources in aid of the consumer and how its expertise can be deployed in their best interests.
	The underlying question for consideration here is: who is the consumer whose interests are in need of protection or support? The precise identity of the consumer in greatest need of support and representation will vary according to different market sectors and different market conditions as they change over time. In some sectors the consumers facing greatest detriment at any given time will be domestic consumers. In other sectors the consumers most at risk may be, from time to time, small businesses or medium-sized enterprises, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said.
	We recognise the importance of providing the new council with the opportunity to consider these issues for the benefit of all types of consumers, from individuals to businesses, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Borrie. Some larger businesses and many smaller businesses have their own trade associations to represent their interests, and these associations are active and vigilant on behalf of their members. Even so, it is likely that the expertise of the new council could be deployed to great advantage from time to time in aid of business consumers, and we wish to ensure that that opportunity is reflected in the Bill.
	This amendment has provided me with a very good reason to revisit the provisions relating to the definition of "consumer". I have reaffirmed that the existing definition of consumers in the Bill does include businesses. The definition refers to,
	"a person who purchases, uses or receives, in Great Britain, goods or services which are supplied in the course of a business carried on by the person supplying or seeking to supply them, or a person who purchases, uses or receives relevant postal services in Northern Ireland".
	The definition of a "person" in the Interpretation Act 1978 applies, which means that it includes a body of persons corporate or incorporate which purchases, uses, or receives the goods or services. The definition in the Bill is deliberately not limited to those who purchase, use or receive goods and services for private purposes and so already extends to businesses as the consumers of the goods and services offered by other businesses. As a result, although I very much appreciate the amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and agree with the intent, Clause 2 effectively covers the position so the amendment is unnecessary. I hope that I have given succour to noble Lords who think that businesses have not been included and that I have provided appropriate comfort on that point.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for her support. She makes precisely the point that we are concerned about. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for his intervention. Interestingly, he seemed to say, on the one hand, that "person" included bodies corporate, but on the other hand, that they should not have as much entitlement to the services of the NCC as individuals. I found that confusing. As he will be well aware—I specifically asked about this—we are trying to encourage the Government to clarify that, unlike in other legislation, sole traders and small businesses are covered.
	The amendment is not perfect. Defining small businesses is not straightforward. We shall take it away and consider it in the light of the Minister's response, which was delivered at some speed. We need to absorb that and consider whether we want to bring the amendment back in some form at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 3 ["Designated consumers"]:

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Clause 3 , page 2, line 37, leave out "may" and insert "must"

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, in Committee we explored the meaning of "designated consumers". For the purposes of the Bill they are consumers who are losing their representative body, be it Postwatch or Energywatch.
	I was moved to table the amendment by the Minister's comments on designated consumers in Grand Committee, as reported at col. 162 of Hansard. We must remember that they are losing their dedicated consumer body, which will be merged with the NCC.
	In debating whether that was wise, we argued in Committee that both the energy and postal markets were going through very volatile times. The Minister said that designated consumers,
	"may or may not be a priority at any time, hence the description 'designated'".—[Official Report, 18/12/06; col. GC162.]
	Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to amend by order the description of which customers are designated consumers for the purpose of this part of the Bill, and he may also by order provide that some consumers will cease to be designated consumers for those purposes. If the consumers are to give up their dedicated bodies, we need to explore here on Report in exactly what circumstances the Secretary of State would decide that those consumers would no longer be designated consumers. They would not receive the same focus of attention, but would that be because the market had calmed down, as the Minister seemed to imply in Committee? Over what period would that have to be? What guarantee would there be that the market would stay calm and that consumers would not therefore be particularly liable to great fluctuations?
	In my remarks on the amendment, I have not included anything about vulnerable consumers, nor do I mean to, because they are an entirely separate group and are subject to later amendments. I am talking only about the whole group of consumers in each case who are to lose their specific body and then can lose the designation of being designated consumers because the Secretary of State decides to do exactly that. Why would that be? I beg to move.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, for tabling the amendment and enabling us to discuss this issue once again. Clause 3 defines "designated consumers" as consumers of mains electricity and mains gas and postal services, and provides for the future addition of water consumers in England and Wales to that category of consumers. The clause also provides powers for the Secretary of State to remove classes of consumers from the "designated consumers" category.
	The amendment would require the Secretary of State to make an order designating water consumers as designated consumers from the beginning, although we have said that we will consult in 2008 on whether to extend the Bill's provisions to water. The second effect of the amendment would appear to be that the Secretary of State would be obliged to remove some designated consumers from the list in subsection (1), but the amendment does not say in which way and when that duty must be exercised. It is difficult to discern the intention behind the effect of the amendment on subsection (2)(b), despite the points made by the noble Baroness.
	The powers of the Secretary of State under Clause 3 permit the possibility of incorporating the water sector in England and Wales in these new arrangements at some point in the future. We wish to retain that flexibility, although I accept that some noble Lords have expressed firm views that the water sector ought to be included from the beginning. The decision to consult in 2008 on whether to include water was taken following the public consultation. The circumstances under which consumers would cease to be designated depend entirely on the market. It would need to be clear that designation was no longer required, after consultation with the council, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and others.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, what did the Minister mean by "depends on the market"? I do not understand that; perhaps I might do so if he repeated it.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, the question was: under what circumstances would consumers cease to be designated? The response was that that would depend entirely on the market. It would need to be clear that designation was no longer required, and after consultation with the council, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and others my understanding is that particular groups of consumers are designated as such because of the incorporation of, for example, Energywatch and Postwatch. Were the situation to change, if other groups came in or left, the group of consumers designated by the Bill would, by its nature, change.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I remain completely dense about all of this. Does the use of "market" mean a group of designated consumers, or is it the marketplace?

Lord Truscott: My Lords, I am referring to consumers not suffering particular problems. I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, on the issue. If I may continue to clarify that point, the concept of "designated consumers" permits the new council to undertake specific functions in respect of consumers of regulated utilities covered by the Bill and to provide continuity from the current sectoral arrangements for representation.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, my amendment was merely a means of exploring the problem further. I am glad that I tabled it, because the issue needs to be addressed. I am not sure that I am happy with the clarity of the Minister's reply, because the three sectors concerned here—energy, postal services and water—are among the most volatile issues for consumers. The situation, certainly regarding energy and water, is unlikely to get any calmer in the foreseeable future. There would be very great concerns about water.
	The Minister could perhaps bring back something more definite at Third Reading regarding the Government's proposals for when the Secretary of State might remove the designation. If the Minister chose not to do that, I would flag it up for colleagues in another place to explore in much greater depth, because the Bill is asking people to give up their representative bodies on the basis that they will be better represented by this new overarching body, without knowing exactly what that means for designation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 4 [Forward work programmes]:

Lord De Mauley: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Clause 4, page 3, line 17, leave out "before each financial year publish" and insert "publish triennially"

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, the amendment would replace the existing requirement on the NCC to publish its forward work programme every year with one requiring it to publish the forward work programme every third year. That is appropriate for several reasons. While it is important that the NCC is alert to the rapid changes in the consumer world—and I have every confidence that that will continue to be the case, given its new status—I remain to be convinced that that requires a forward work programme every year. A common criticism of organisations in both the public and private sectors is their short-termism and failure to plan properly for the long term. The amendment seeks to put that right.
	Furthermore, it is important not to underestimate the time, effort and money that go into the production of a full forward work programme. Noble Lords will be aware of how debilitating a constant publication deadline would be, when an organisation could better spend its time working on its core purposes. What is more, the Government recognise this in both local government and mainstream government agencies. Local development schemes require councils to set out policy every three years, on a rolling scheme, and the police authorities set out three-year strategic plans. A three-year plan allows time to produce a report, while ensuring that planned work can be budgeted for much more efficiently.
	In Committee, the Minister's words were most encouraging. He stated:
	"It is normal practice to provide indicative budgets for three years ahead to aid planning and provide certainty".—[Official Report, 18/12/06; col. GC 174.]
	If budgets need to be planned under a three-year framework to provide certainty, it is surely somewhat illogical for the programme of work to operate on any other basis.
	Clause 6 requires the NCC to produce an annual report that informs the Secretary of State and Parliament of the council's activities within the year, but I do not see why it is necessary for the NCC to do both these things on a yearly basis. I believe that it would be far more fruitful to the NCC to enjoy some flexibility and discretion in carrying out its duties to enable it to focus on the task of championing the consumer. I beg to move.

Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord does not wish to push this issue to a vote. I see the force of his arguments, but I disagree with them. The financial planning afforded by three years is sensible but, when we are dealing with consumer matters, long-term issues can easily be incorporated in an annual forecast of activities. Therefore, I do not think that only if you have a three-year plan will you be able to look beyond the horizon.
	Let us take two of the areas for which the National Consumer Council will be responsible under the Bill: energy and postal services. It would have been most unhelpful if, over the past two and half years, a consumer council for energy had not had to indicate what it wanted to do for the 12 months ahead, given that we had energy prices of such volatility and given the difficulties that confronted the regulator, the consumer and, indeed, Parliament. Where you have rapid change, as we have had of late in the energy markets, it would be foolhardy not to do that. People would ask, "Why should the consumer council be looking into this? After all, it wasn't in the three-year plan".
	This is not an area of disagreement. We assume that, when the Bill is enacted, one of the major responsibilities of the National Consumer Council will be the protection of the postal consumer at a time when the market is opening. We know from the 1990s, when gas and electricity markets were liberalised, that problems arose that we had not anticipated. If, in those days, the old consumer councils had said, "We'd like to look at that, but we've committed resource to other worthy causes", there would have been a lack of flexibility. This is about the actions of the council and its freedom to operate. I think that, as the Bill stands, there is plenty of scope for longer-term planning within the documents and that the amendment would unduly tie the council's hands.
	One thing that has not been taken account of and which we have to recognise is that, after the Bill is enacted, the National Consumer Council will, I imagine, be of far more interest to whatever committee is responsible for it in the House of Commons. As someone who chaired the Trade and Industry Committee for a number of years, I have to say that we perhaps did not pay as much attention to the National Consumer Council as we might have done, although we paid plenty of attention to Energywatch and Postwatch. It would be of great assistance to our colleagues elsewhere—where a Select Committee looks at this area of operation, affording a degree of parliamentary accountability—to be able to meet the council annually to discuss the work programme. That would allow the council to accommodate the views of the other House. I think that, although the amendment is well intentioned, it is fundamentally flawed, and therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not push it to a vote. I am in favour of three-year financing but I am not necessarily in favour of over-prescriptive three-year plans, which could well be inflexible.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan, on this but not because I think that my noble friend is wrong. The turgid language in the Bill is not clear. I think—I should like the Minister to confirm or deny this—that what is envisaged is a three, four or five-year plan and, within that, a financial report on where the council expects to be each year. It will say at the end of each year how it is moving towards ensuring that the plan ultimately works out.
	As the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, pointed out, things can change drastically in a market. If the council cannot react because the sums are not there, surely, under the terms of best business practice, it should say that the three-year plan has been put off course due to whatever reason and that therefore, for this year, it needs to do this and, for next year, it needs to do that.
	The wording in the Bill makes the reporting process appear highly complicated. I hope that my noble friend does not feel that I have taken his amendment in the wrong way, but I think that the Bill is probably set out as it is—I hope that the Minister will confirm this—to ensure that a big hole does not appear in year one of a three-year plan without anyone knowing about it and without it being addressed until the three-year plan is reported on. I think that the provision is probably common sense.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I largely agree with my noble friend Lord O'Neill and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, but there is another dimension to this. I do not think that the new NCC, any more than its three predecessor organisations, would have any difficulty in preparing annual work plans. Those organisations do them now and they have a corporate plan along the lines set out just now by the noble Baroness. So I do not think that planning is the issue, but the finances could be.
	In particular, we have to bear in mind that this is not simply a question of a grant in aid from the DTI in the normal sense of general taxation, but of levies on designated consumers, which a large part of Clause 4 deals with. It is important not only that the new NCC knows what it has more than a year ahead, barring accidents, but also that the regulated industries know what they are expected to pay for those three years ahead. So it is sensible to deal with the finances on a three-year basis from that point of view, as well as from the point of view of general security of outlook. But, so far as concerns the planning, the wording of the Bill is perfectly okay.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions from noble Lords. With regard to annual reports and forward work programmes, the idea is that the plan might be done for three years but it is a rolling programme. I think that that meets the point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain.
	The amendment would require the new council to publish a forward work programme only once every three years. We believe that the publication of an annual forward work programme strikes a good balance with the requirement to prepare an annual report in line with financial years, as I mentioned. That is the basis of the provisions as drafted. This requirement replicates the current requirement on both Energywatch and Postwatch to produce a forward work programme annually. It is also consistent with the requirement to produce an annual forward work programme on the sectoral regulators, Ofgem and Postcomm, respectively.
	The publication of an annual forward work programme, on which the council must consult, ensures that the proposed activities of the council are transparent and that it can be held to account for those activities. That is particularly important given that some of the new council's funding will come from industry. Additionally, the consultation allows it to obtain the views of key stakeholders in determining its priorities and the activities it undertakes to achieve them.
	I recognise that an organisation has to spend time and effort on preparing a forward work programme, but it is time and effort well spent. The forward work programme is the means by which the new council can set out a programme for consumer advocacy, set out its aims and priorities, and—because this is also important—set out its funding requirement. The Bill requires the forward work programme to cover the year ahead, but in many cases organisations are understandably keen to set out a programme covering a longer period, perhaps three or more years ahead. That enables the organisation to take a longer-term view, and by updating and renewing that vision each year, new and urgent priorities can be taken into account. Those points were made by my noble friends Lord Whitty and Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan.
	The forward work programme is in many ways the showcase for an organisation. It is a statement of intent, certainly, but, more than that, it is a demonstration of ambition to make a difference and a statement of willingness to be held accountable for that ambition.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, I thank the Minister, my noble friend Lady O'Cathain and the noble Lords, Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan and Lord Whitty, for their contributions. I am pleased that we have had the opportunity of this debate; it has been useful and flushed out some helpful information, especially on budgeting. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 5 [General provision about functions]:

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, if Amendment No. 7 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 8.

Lord Truscott: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Clause 5 , page 4, line 40, leave out "have regard to the desirability of acting in the manner" and insert "exercise its functions in the manner which it considers is"

Lord Truscott: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 8, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall.
	Both amendments seek to strengthen the new council's sustainable development objectives and, I believe, are intended to have the same effect. Having listened carefully to the concerns raised by noble Lords in Committee, my amendment follows the precedent of Section 35(1) of the Water Act 2003, which inserts a new Section 27A(12) into the Water Industry Act 1991. This section places a duty on the Consumer Council for Water to perform its powers and duties in the manner it considers best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Amendment No. 7 places an equivalent sustainable development requirement on the new National Consumer Council; the terminology used is slightly different, as the new council has "functions".
	The term "functions" is defined in Clause 40 as including powers and duties. Such functions include, for example, the representative function under Clause 7, the research function under Clause 8 and the information function under Clause 9; the objective does not only relate to the internal operations of the council, for example. Both amendments therefore require the council to exercise its functions in the manner it considers best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Both amendments are intended to have the same effect, hence only one of them is required, and Amendment No. 7 is the preferred option. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for moving somewhat on my Amendment No. 8. We have tabled an amendment of our own to highlight that the Government could move further. I doubt that the NCC feels that the government amendment gives enough emphasis to the extreme importance of the sustainability duties.
	The NCC's recent work, for example, has clearly had a significant effect. A while ago, my honourable friend Norman Baker published How Green Is Your Supermarket?.The answer for all of them was, "Not at all"—the word "green" never crossed their minds. The NCC recently published a report called Greening Supermarkets, which addressed a wide range of issues and encouraged supermarkets to start to take action. We have seen headlines about supermarkets vying with each other to prove their green credentials, but they are still far from green. The Government will know that among the issues that still hang over how green a supermarket can ever be are the number of car journeys made to and from it and the amount of food being trucked up and down Britain's roads. However, the issues raised by the NCC's report have been immensely influential and underline how such a body can help consumers as a whole to encourage suppliers to change completely how they think about such issues.
	The Government are resisting my amendment, which requires the NCC to,
	"develop policies and discharge its duties so that it contributes".
	It is much firmer than the Government's amendment, which leaves it to the NCC to judge. So if push came to shove and the NCC was not exercising its functions in that manner—a scenario I cannot envisage when it is under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—and sustainability did not seem to be a big issue for it, how would the Government judge whether the council was doing enough? We know from debates on this matter that climate change will not go away. It is bound to be important, yet the pulls on the NCC may not always be about it; they may be about price. That is where some of the biggest tensions will come from, especially in the field of energy, where there will be tension between maintaining as low a price as possible and some microgeneration issues—I shall not go down that path. How will the Government ensure that, despite their somewhat strengthened amendment, sustainability will be at the heart of what the NCC does?

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I apologise that I was not able to be present on the second day of Committee stage. I hoped that we would reach my amendment, Amendment No. 100, on the first day, but that was not possible, and on the second day I was speaking at a conference in Nottingham.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, rightly raised the issue of sustainability. As the Minister knows, Natural England was recently set up. For me, there is a question about where the responsibilities will lie. The new National Consumer Council will deal with complaints, but how much additional responsibility might it have for looking at sustainability? Will it make any judgments on sustainability, or will it look to Natural England to develop those policies and then react? While the NCC is being set up now, Natural England was launched only last October, so it is still in the early stages of its remit. On a later amendment I shall take up, in particular, the position of the Commission for Rural Communities and how it has not responded on behalf of post offices. Where does responsibility for sustainability lie? What interplay will there be between the organisations? Will one body deal just with complaints while the other deals with issues on a daily basis and looks at long-term sustainability?

Lord Truscott: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, when speaking to the two amendments, asked what was the Government's intention. Amendment No. 7, in my name, would ensure that the council exercised its functions, including the core functions in Clauses 7 to 9, in a manner that it considers is best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. We think that our amendment strengthens the clause. The term "functions" is used, as it is consistent with the drafting in the rest of the Bill and covers powers and duties.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about the functions of the NCC. The council is subject to challenge if its functions are not carried out. My advice is that the council is also accountable through its annual report. I will write to the noble Baroness to clarify the point further.

On Question, amendment, agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
	Clause 6 [Annual report]:

Lord De Mauley: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Clause 6 , page 5, line 17, after "activities)," insert—
	"( ) contain details about the most frequent complaints from consumers about post and energy for that year, ( ) contain recommendations, if any, for regulated energy and post companies to change their practices,"

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, Amendment No. 9 would place a duty on the NCC to include in its annual report details about the most frequent complaints from consumers about post and energy for the year in question, and make recommendations, should it see fit, for regulated energy and post companies to change their practices. I return to this amendment from Committee as I believe that it would support and underpin the merger of Postwatch and Energywatch at what could be one of its weakest points.
	The amendment would complement the duty that we seek to place on redress schemes in Amendment No. 74, which would ensure that all suppliers of services had effective internal complaints handling procedures. We will be able to go into further detail on that point in due course. The amendment would enable the NCC fully to implement its new duty of providing insight into consumer affairs and as a provider of a complaints signposting service under Consumer Direct. That is particularly important in the light of the services the NCC will be covering. Postal and energy services are essential to all consumers, especially the most vulnerable. The impending closure of thousands of post offices highlights that the consumer will soon need assistance more than ever before.
	This addition to the annual report would be a simple task for the NCC to perform. Energywatch has informed us that, as it keeps records of all the complaints it receives as a matter of course, it would simply be a matter of pulling together statistics and displaying them in a suitable form. Page 8 of the Energywatch annual report shows that very well.
	As I think the Minister has pointed out, Clause 44 already places a duty on the NCC to publish statistics on complaints, but not on any regular basis. The amendment puts complaints statistics, the most transparent insight into consumer relations with providers, at the heart of the NCC's self-evaluation.
	Complaints demonstrate better than any poll the attitude of the consumer and how successfully providers are running their services. The amendment provides a low-cost, consumer-driven addition to the way in which the NCC will communicate through its annual report. It will also place complaints at the centre of how the NCC evaluates its own work. I beg to move.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, Amendment No. 9 would add to the obligations on the council in respect of the annual report by requiring it to include details of the most frequent complaints from consumers about post and energy for the year. It would also require the new NCC to include in the report any recommendations to regulated energy and post companies to change their practices.
	I certainly agree with the objective of the amendment. I share the ambition of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, that the council should be vigilant and active in the pursuit of opportunities to increase the transparency of the relevant markets by drawing attention to the sort of problems encountered by consumers. I am also very supportive of the ambition that the council should be a positive force for change and should be able to make recommendations to companies that would improve their performance to the benefit of consumers—that is also a clear benefit to the companies. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, has previously made the powerful and compelling observation that complaints are important to companies because they help them to improve their performance and develop their businesses. I support that view wholeheartedly.
	Clause 9 provides the council with a general information function, which allows it to facilitate information provision to consumers, and Clause 44 obligates the council to publish information on the levels of compliance by an energy or postal services company with any complaint-handling standards set by a regulator.
	I hope that there is general agreement that the new statutory functions conferred by the Bill will provide the council with every opportunity to pursue the objectives set out in the amendment. As I said, I endorse the objectives of the amendment. However, although the council may very well include such information in its annual report if it considers that appropriate, it should not be obliged to do so, because that might not be the most appropriate way to provide consumers with information on complaints or on its recommendations to regulated post and energy companies on their practices.
	I hope that noble Lords will agree that, on balance, we should leave it to the council to decide how best to bring such information to the attention of consumers.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and his supportive words agreeing with the objective of the amendment. I am not entirely sure that I agree with him but, having every confidence in the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 7 [The representative function]:

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Clause 7 , page 5, line 29, leave out "may" and insert "must"

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, with this amendment are grouped Amendments Nos. 11 to 13. They return to the issue of whether the Bill should lay a firm duty on the council with regard to the representative function in Clause 7, the research function in Clause 8, the information function in Clause 9 and the general powers of investigation in Clause 10; or whether it should simply have the power to do that.
	We explored that in Committee, but I felt that it merited further investigation in the light of the Minister's reply, as reported at col. GC155 of Hansard for 18 December. The Minister resisted the idea of the council having the duty as opposed to the power because he felt that the council should be able to set its own priorities, and that laying a duty on it would prohibit it from doing so. However, my amendment would not spell out in any way how the council should conduct its representative function under Clause 7(1)(a), (b) and (c); it would say simply that it must do these things. It should not have discretion on whether to provide advice and information to persons about consumer matters, and it should certainly not have discretion on whether to represent the views of consumers on consumer matters. That is the very core of what it is to do. I imagine that the Minister will say that that is covered in Clause 4, on the forward work programmes, but the fact that the council has its own clause, entitled "The core functions", means that those are its core functions. Therefore, despite the Minister's resistance in Committee, it would be interesting to know why the Government are not laying a very firm duty on the council to perform those core functions.
	The research function is equally crucial to consumers, because if the council chooses not to obtain the information on consumer matters, it will be a fairly toothless creature. It must disseminate that advice to consumers, because that is the other reason for its being.
	On the general powers of investigation, I cannot understand how the Government can draft the clause so that the council could exercise any discretion as to whether it will investigate. Of course it will have the discretion to decide how it will investigate and how much resource it puts behind that investigation, but surely that is exactly what this council is for and exactly what consumers will be relying on. If the Government say that a Bill such as this is there to improve life for consumers, it really must be seen to have the power to do so. That is why I re-tabled these amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, I understand clearly the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, that the council should be required to fulfil its functions as provided by the Bill. There is no real difference between us on that point, but the amendment would remove the council's discretion in exercising its key functions. The council would be required to make representations to government and others, to undertake research, to facilitate the provision of information and advice to consumers, and to use its general powers of investigation. The council already has the flexibility to do all or any of these things, but it is not possible under the Bill to require it to do any particular thing without defining precisely what must be done and when. That is why the clause is drafted as it is.
	I hope that noble Lords will acknowledge that the Bill's key purpose is to provide better and even more effective consumer representation to create a new body with important functions that go beyond those undertaken by the current National Consumer Council. The question is not whether the functions of the new council should be outlined in the Bill, or even whether the council should be sure to undertake the powers and duties represented by these functions; rather, it is a question of whether we should attempt to require the council to undertake all the functions at the same time in perpetuity, or whether we should set out the main functions of the council and leave it to determine how and when these functions should be exercised, according to the priority need and in accordance with its forward work programme. That is the position that the Government have taken.
	The council will need to consult on its forward work programme, which will provide all interested parties with the opportunity to submit ideas for action and views on how the council should undertake its functions for the period ahead. In its annual report, the council will need to report on progress on any projects described in that forward work programme, which is a good example of transparency.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I suppose we will see whether this works only when the council in its new guise comes into being. This will be an interesting debate for the other place too. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 8 [The research function]:
	[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
	Clause 9 [The information function]:
	[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
	Clause 10 [General powers of investigation]:
	[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
	Clause 11 [Investigation of complaints made by vulnerable designated consumers]:

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 14:
	Clause 11 , page 7, line 1, after "vulnerable" insert "or otherwise disadvantaged"

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, with Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16, we turn to Clause 11 on vulnerable customers. The definition of vulnerable is given in Clause 11(2), which states:
	"For this purpose a person is 'vulnerable' if the Council is satisfied that it is not reasonable to expect that person to pursue the complaint on that person's own behalf".
	My amendment will expand our discussion in Committee. Of course, energy consumers in particular would be moving to be looked after by the NCC. Will the Minister expand on the Government's understanding of who would be considered vulnerable? There is a gap between people who are considered vulnerable under the definitions in the Energy Act and the Water Act and the definition in this Bill. I wonder whether those vulnerable people are being downscaled. A person might be able to pursue the complaint, but he or she might be very ill for a short period, as in the example that I gave in Committee, which I will not repeat now. The council should have particular regard to vulnerable people. The purpose of this small group of amendments is to explore how seriously the Government are taking this issue. I beg to move.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, Amendment No. 14 would extend the category of vulnerable consumers who can be aided by the council in the investigation of their complaints to "otherwise disadvantaged consumers". I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for raising this issue. Again, I do not think that there is any real difference between us on the question of who should be aided by the council in the investigation of their complaints. It is important that those who are most in need of assistance should be able to turn to the council for support and guidance.
	For that reason we have deliberately not sought to categorise those who constitute vulnerable consumers in the Bill. Our understanding of what makes for vulnerability develops and changes over time and we should be careful not to preclude any particular group of consumers from the possibility of assistance now or in the future. The Bill leaves it to the council to consider who should be regarded as vulnerable. Clause 11(2) states that,
	"a person is 'vulnerable' if the Council is satisfied that it is not reasonable to expect that person to pursue the complaint on that person's own behalf".
	The addition of the words "otherwise disadvantaged" does not add materially to the consideration. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is the best way forward to meet possible future needs.
	Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 would require the council to investigate complaints by vulnerable designated consumers and to provide advice or to make representations on behalf of the consumer. I would suggest to noble Lords that the interests of the most vulnerable consumers will be best served by permitting the council to exercise discretion as to which complaints by consumers need to be supported and, where the council sees a need to provide support, which means of support would be best in the circumstances.
	The council should be able to use its judgment to define the groups of consumers who need help and to develop and refine that view to meet new or emerging circumstances. The council should have the discretion to decide how best to provide support for vulnerable consumers. It is important that the council should be able to determine how and when its important functions in respect of vulnerable consumers should be exercised according to the need and best use of its resources.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I hope that the council will have a definition of those people it regards as vulnerable and will keep a very careful record both of those it has chosen to treat as vulnerable and those it has not chosen; it should then review both categories from time to time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
	Clause 12 [Investigation of complaints relating to disconnection of gas or electricity]:

Lord Truscott: moved Amendment No. 17:
	Clause 12, page 7, line 27, after "of" insert ", or a threat to disconnect,"

Lord Truscott: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 17 I shall speak also to the other amendments grouped with it. These amendments supplement and expand the scope of the obligation on the council to investigate complaints relating to disconnection of gas or electricity supplies. First, they extend the obligation to investigate complaints of consumers who are threatened with disconnection in addition to those whose supply has already been disconnected or, having been disconnected, are experiencing difficulties in securing reconnection. Secondly, they extend the obligation to cover the investigation of complaints from consumers who use prepayment meters where the meter, the means of charging the meter or the prepayment meter facilities which enable the consumer to purchase credit for the meter have failed and the consumer is unable to obtain a supply.
	These enhancements are important and represent a positive and practical response to advice we have received from Energywatch and others. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, made the point most persuasively in Committee, while the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and my noble friend Lord O'Neill also contributed to the debate on this important issue. As a result I am glad to be able to bring forward these amendments which I believe will address the structural issue of the scope of the new council's remit in this crucial area of potential consumer detriment. They will also provide the council with the obligation to extend its advice and support to consumers with prepayment meters and those who are threatened with disconnection.
	I should like to take this opportunity to emphasise once more the importance we attach to retaining the considerable skills and expertise of Energywatch staff in the transition to the new arrangements. They will clearly have a major role to play in the success of the new council. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling these amendments, which meet many of our concerns in this area.

Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness in thanking my noble friend. I agree that the Government have co-operated on this issue. A number of organisations had approached noble Lords and I think they will take considerable consolation from the comprehensive character of the amendments that have been tabled in so far as they have met almost all of the concerns we expressed. I hope, therefore, that this important gesture, which may be more than a gesture, will go a long way to speeding the passage of the legislation.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I support the amendments. They make it clear that all issues concerning cut-off of supply, whether through a threat of disconnection or a failure somewhere else in the system, will be treated in this way. I simply make the point that I might have made on the previous group of amendments that these are the kind of complaints that would fall to the new National Consumer Council. I know that Energywatch takes the view that there is a wider set of priority complaints over and above those dealing with disconnection or failure of supply. At some point it will need to be made clear what boundaries will be considered by the National Consumer Council, by the normal information function of Consumer Direct or by the companies themselves in the first instance, and, if they fail, by the ombudsman system.
	It would be helpful if such clarity were placed on the Postwatch side of the equation so that the new structures and consumers can be clear where each form of complaint will fall.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Truscott: moved Amendments Nos. 18 to 24:
	Clause 12 , page 7, line 32, after first "of" insert ", or a threat to cut off,"
	Clause 12 , page 7, line 36, at end insert—
	"(da) a complaint by a gas consumer against a gas supplier, in respect of the failure of a prepayment system;"
	Clause 12 , page 7, line 39, after "of" insert ", or a threat to disconnect,"
	Clause 12 , page 7, line 45, at end insert—
	"(g) a complaint by an electricity consumer against an electricity supplier, in respect of the failure of a prepayment system."
	Clause 12 , page 8, line 8, leave out subsection (4)
	Clause 12 , page 8, line 47, at end insert—
	"( ) in paragraphs (da) and (g), references to the failure of a prepayment system are references to— (i) a failure in the facilities for payment for the supply of gas or electricity which results in a consumer with a prepayment meter being unable to make a payment for the supply of gas or electricity, or (ii) where a payment has been made for the supply of gas or electricity through a prepayment meter, a case where the supply is not given through the prepayment meter because of a defect in the meter or in the facilities for payment."
	Clause 12 , page 8, line 48, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
	"(8) In this section—
	"electricity consumer" means an individual who is a consumer in relation to electricity supplied by an authorised supplier;
	"enactment" means—
	(a) an Act of Parliament, (b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or (c) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales, whenever passed or made;
	"gas consumer" means an individual who is a consumer in relation to gas supplied by an authorised supplier;
	"the consumer's premises"—
	(a) in relation to an electricity consumer, means the premises to which the electricity supplied to the consumer by the authorised supplier is supplied; (b) in relation to a gas consumer, means the premises to which the gas supplied to the consumer is conveyed by the gas transporter;
	"redress scheme" means a scheme under which complaints may be made to, and investigated and determined by, an independent person."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 17 [Secretary of State's powers to require reports]:

Baroness Wilcox: moved Amendment No. 25:
	Clause 17 , page 10, line 15, leave out "may" and insert "must"

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, the amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish any reports that are submitted to him by the National Consumer Council. It seems only right that reports from the National Consumer Council, which will be a partially publicly funded body and provide services to the consumer through Consumer Direct, should be accessible to the public.
	In Committee the Minister said that, in some cases, it would not be appropriate to publish reports from the National Consumer Council and that there could be cases where reports from the National Consumer Council were not,
	"of wider interest or relevance".—[Official Report, 9/1/07; col. GC 54.]
	I cannot see how reports from a council dealing with national consumer matters would not be of some interest to some consumers. The Minister noted publication costs. Surely if a report is published for the Secretary of State there cannot be great expense incurred in merely attaching a link to that report to the NCC website.
	I have not been convinced by the Government's refusal to allow the publication of all NCC reports. This is a matter of transparency for the consumer and of public accountability. I was worried by the Minister's words that the Secretary of State and the National Consumer Council would between themselves decide what was appropriate information to give to the public. That does not seem to be the best way for a champion of consumers to operate. I hope the Minister can give a more substantial reason than publication costs, which I contend would be non-existent, and the supposed relevance or not of reports. I beg to move.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, because the amendment obviously seeks transparency, one feels very much in favour of it in principle. However, one should put the amendment into context. The National Consumer Council is required by other provisions in the Bill to publish its annual reports and its forward work programmes. The noble Baroness did not refer to Clause 16, which immediately precedes the clause with which we are now dealing, under which the council may prepare a report on any matter within its function and may publish the report. Some of the noble Baroness's remarks would be applicable to Clause 16 because it provides that the National Consumer Council may publish reports of its own volition on matters it has itself chosen to consider. The logic of her argument suggests that if that report is of interest to consumers nationally it ought to be published.
	Leaving that aside, the noble Baroness has alerted us to Clause 17, under which the NCC is required to report on "any matter" that the Secretary of State specifies, and the Secretary of State may publish any report under that clause. The noble Baroness seeks to have the word "may" altered to "must". Surely the NCC itself is free to publish a report on any matter it considers, whether it considers it of its own volition or at the request of the Secretary of State. Perhaps I am making a legalistic point to the Minister. I hope I am right about it and that the power of the council to publish any report under Clause 16 is not confined to that clause but that the council could publish a report as it wishes if that has been requested by the Secretary of State under Clause 17. I hope I am correct that the NCC is entitled to publish any report on anything it studies, whether at the request of the Secretary of State or not.
	The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness would be unduly burdensome by requiring the Government, at the taxpayer's expense, to publish a report that neither the Government nor the National Consumer Council thought was of sufficient interest to justify publication. There must be some situations where a report is not worthy of publication simply because the work that has been done demonstrates that there is no problem where previously it was thought that there was.
	I fear that the amendment might inhibit the use by the Government of the power to seek the help of the NCC on matters relating to consumer interests. Surely the last thing we want is for the Government to feel inhibited or that they had better not risk asking the NCC for a report because of some compulsory obligation to publish that report in any circumstances and at whatever cost. I doubt the value of this amendment.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, Amendment No. 25 relates to Clause 17 and to the actions that fall to the Secretary of State in this respect. I was grateful for the opportunity to debate this amendment in Committee. From that debate, it is clear that the intention behind the amendment is essentially the need for transparency in the Government's dealings with the new council and the importance of the new council maintaining its independence. I confirm our wholehearted support for those intentions.
	As I explained in Committee, Clause 17 gives the Secretary of State the power to require the council to prepare and submit reports on any matter, permitting the Secretary of State to call on the expertise of the council to prepare and submit a report on issues that are judged important enough to the consumer interest to warrant further attention. Such a report would be for the purpose of reaching a decision on what further action, if any, was needed on the issue. We envisage that such a need could arise where the issues in question have not been identified in the council's consultation on its forward work programme.
	The amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish all the reports submitted by the council under this clause irrespective of whether or not they are of wider interest or relevance, a point rightly made by my noble friend Lord Borrie. Having requested a report from the council, the Secretary of State would take into account any recommendations made on how best to progress the particular issue and would work closely with the council and others in coming to decisions about what would be appropriate in each circumstance. The current drafting allows for the discretion needed for that to happen.
	On the issue of the independence of the new council, particularly in response to my noble friend Lord Borrie, I confirm that Clause 16 enables the council to prepare and publish reports on any matter within the scope of its functions, while Clause 18(2) enables it to publish advice and information about consumer issues if it thinks publication will promote the interests of consumers. Those powers allow the council to take separate action in the interests of the consumer, or indeed in the interests of transparency, should it consider that appropriate. While I am sympathetic to the amendment, I believe we meet all the substantive points raised.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, whether the Minister has answered his question. I listened to him carefully. He said that the council can do what it likes under Clauses 16 and 18, but I did not hear him mention Clause 17.

Noble Lords: Order

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I am told that because we are on Report, I may be breaking a rule. In that case I shall use the record instead.
	I was chilled by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I thought, "What am I listening to? I'm listening to the National Consumer Council being changed from the body it is: brave and strong and able to publish its reports as it has done all these 25 to 30 years, not hindered by the Government in any way, fully funded by government but free to choose its work and to report as it wished". Then I heard it said that the Secretary of State and the NCC will between them decide when things are published. All of this shows how important the amendment is. We should use the word "must". The National Consumer Council is being tied up in these words. I worry when I hear "appropriate", "discretion", "drafting". I worry that the National Consumer Council is being subsumed by a great, big body on which lies the Secretary of State's hand, stopping it doing what it wishes to do. The provision does not sound clear or transparent. It does not sound like what we want the National Consumer Council to be.
	I am sure that the Minister has thought carefully and been well advised by his civil servants on how he should respond to me at this stage. I do not wish to divide the House on this point but I am disappointed by the answers. I was particularly disappointed by the reaction of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Borrie: My Lords—

Noble Lords: Order!

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 21 [Voluntary activities]:

Lord Truscott: moved Amendment No. 26:
	Clause 21 , page 12, line 6, at end insert—
	"( ) The Council may acquire an interest in a body corporate under subsection (4)(b) only with the consent of the Secretary of State."

Lord Truscott: My Lords, the amendment relates to Clause 21, which provides the council with the power to carry out commissioned work in any area where it has skill, experience or expertise. Under the clause, the council would be able to give advice or assistance to others and be paid for providing this service.
	This clause also gives the new council the power to acquire an interest in an existing body corporate with a view to that body exercising certain functions on its behalf. Following a very useful debate in Committee, we have given this aspect of the provision further consideration and concluded that it is appropriate to make this power subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, as was raised in Committee. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 24 [Enforcement by regulator of section 23 notice]:

Lord Truscott: moved Amendment No. 27:
	Clause 24 , page 13, line 10, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"

Lord Truscott: My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. The amendments have arisen as a result of changes to the group of persons to whom the complaints-handling and redress provisions in Part 2 of the Bill apply.
	Following representations by Ofgem, Clauses 41 and 48 are being amended to extend the Bill's provisions for redress schemes in the energy sector to include the holders of licences to distribute electricity and gas transporters. The changes mean that the complaints-handling and redress provisions will now be applicable to a wider group than can reasonably be defined by the term "supplier" which is used in the current drafting. The term "provider" better captures all those concerned. The amendments are necessary to make the minor drafting improvements needed across the Bill to substitute the term "provider" for "supplier", and include a consequential change to the Long Title. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Truscott: moved Amendments Nos. 28 to 39:
	Clause 24 , page 13, line 16, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 24 , page 13, line 17, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 24 , page 13, line 22, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 24 , page 13, line 24, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 24 , page 13, line 25, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 24 , page 13, line 28, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 24 , page 14, line 2, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 24 , page 14, line 3, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 24 , page 14, line 6, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 24 , page 14, line 8, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 24 , page 14, line 9, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 24 , page 14, line 18, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 29 [Abolition of "Energywatch" and "Postwatch"]:

Lord Razzall: moved Amendment No. 40:
	Clause 29 , page 16, line 40, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
	"(2) The Secretary of State shall bring forward an Order subject to an affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament to abolish the Consumer Council for Postal Services.
	(2A) The Order set out in subsection (2) shall not be made before 2010."

Lord Razzall: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is very clear. We propose that the merger of the Consumer Council for Postal Services should be postponed until at least 2010. We are specific about the reasons why we are moving this amendment. Nobody who has listened to the debates in your Lordships' House and another place and paid attention to the consultation that has gone on across the country can doubt that both the Post Office network and the Royal Mail are in disarray. Four thousand post office branches have closed since Labour came to power in 1997, on top of the 3,500 post offices and sub-post offices closed during the period of the last Conservative Government. On 14 December, the Government announced plans for Post Office restructuring, which they expect to lead to the closure of a further 2,500 branches by 2009. The consultation on those proposals goes on until 8 March.
	We are aware that one difficulty that the Post Office network has suffered is the phasing out of the Post Office card account, on which many pensioners rely to receive their state pension and on which thousands of branches depended to keep them in business. On 14 December, in the face of a huge outcry, the Government backed down and announced a replacement for the card account. It is a matter of knowledge for your Lordships that in recent years the Government have directly or indirectly overseen the Post Office network losing TV licences, vehicle excise duty and passport authentication work.
	I do not need to go on, as this is not a debate about the decline of the Post Office network, but that decline is highly relevant to the amendment that stands in my name and that of my noble friend. As for the Royal Mail, noble Lords will be aware that a significant loss of business occurs almost every week, now that it has lost its monopoly in a number of areas in the delivery of postal services. We have the benefit through the pages of the financial press of seeing the dispute going on between Allan Leighton, chairman of the Royal Mail network, and the Government about whether they will permit proposals for any form of share issue to Post Office workers or any form of shares sell-off in the Royal Mail network.
	Against that background my noble friend Lady Miller and I believe that this is not the time to interfere with the very effective method of consumer consultation which is in place as we speak. We wonder what is the point of transferring en bloc the expertise in the Consumer Council for Postal Services to the new consumer council. If the people with the skills necessary to perform the very effective job done by that organisation over the past few years are to be made redundant, there will be a significant loss of effectiveness over the next three years, which in the public's eye will be an absolutely crucial period for the future of the Post Office network and Royal Mail. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, for tabling this amendment. I again apologise to your Lordships' House that I was not able to speak to it at an earlier stage as I was speaking at a conference in Nottingham.
	The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will well know that for six years after 2000, when he was a Minister responsible for rural matters, I expressed my concerns about the future of post offices. I share the concerns that have been expressed on that issue. Part of the Bill is concerned with redress. Consumers want things to go right. Today, through no fault of the railway company concerned, I had the most horrendous journey getting here. A fire on a freight train outside Berwick totally blocked the line and it will be blocked for 24 hours due to the nature of the cargo on that train. I should say in fairness to the railway company that it was very good and made arrangements for some passengers to be transported via the west coast line. In that context it is important that we do not water down the Bill's new provisions. I am particularly concerned about the part that concerns the postal services. I have made various rail journeys back and forth to Scotland. I had a difficult journey going up on Sunday as I was delayed three times, which was the railway company's fault. However, the second occasion on which I experienced difficulty was certainly not its fault.
	The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, made various points on post offices, but I want to comment on the situation from a slightly broader perspective. As the practice on Report is to examine Ministers' responses, I want to highlight the Minister's response and to explore whether we are happy with it and therefore confident about where it will take us. As the Minister indicated clearly in Grand Committee:
	"Postal services consumers will also benefit from the introduction of redress schemes".
	But we want to ensure that we enhance, and certainly do not detract from, the service that is offered by the new consumer council.
	The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, touched on the number of post offices that are likely to close. I share his concern. The Minister also stated in Grand Committee that,
	"99 per cent of the population will be within three miles of an outlet".—[Official Report, 9/1/07; col. GC 60.];
	that is, a post office outlet. However, in order to achieve that percentage, are not some of the most rural and remote post office outlets more likely to be closed in the future cuts so that the Government can achieve their target of having 99 per cent of people living within three miles of an outlet? Having travelled down through the country today, I am aware that some very remote areas will be in great jeopardy of losing their outlets. Will the Minister clarify the response that he gave in Committee as I do not think that he responded to that point?
	My next point was raised by colleagues. How will the Government ensure that the most vulnerable people in the remotest areas who have the greatest difficulty accessing these outlets will continue to be able to do so? I take up the point made about the squeeze on the Post Office bank card, which, as we have heard, has been overturned temporarily, but who will fight that corner in the longer term? I understand that the National Consumer Council will deal only with complaints; it will not set strategy. Perhaps the Minister can answer my earlier question in that regard. I refer him to the setting up of the Commission for Rural Communities. When that announcement was made I assumed that the Commission for Rural Communities would be the watchdog that would ensure that the rural voice and people's concerns about the closure of post offices were heard. I was desperately disappointed that that was not heard in the national press.
	I am trying to get the Minister to respond to some of the comments he made in Committee. I ask him to clarify whether the council is going to deal just with an individual complaint or whether it will be able to look over the longer term at the repercussions of government decisions and the Royal Mail's decisions on squeezing post offices. Having read carefully through the Committee stage, I find that not at all clear. I seek clarification from the Minister on those points which were debated in Committee but not clarified to my satisfaction. I am sorry that I was not here to raise the matter at the time.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, but I draw exactly the opposite conclusion on what should appear in the Bill. It seems to me that the problems of the Post Office have not been resolved by dealing with them in isolation from everything else that happens to rural areas. The whole rationale of the Bill is to create a trans-sectoral organisation which is able to bring expertise from other markets into markets such as the post office and the energy market, and to use the expertise in those markets to create more generic solutions to consumer problems. The longer you delay the establishment of those arrangements—and we are already putting water back until after the initial establishment of the arrangements—the longer it will take for that new organisation, the new consumer council, to achieve that level of strength and influence in general decision-making.
	On rural post offices, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and I have been very much concerned with services for rural areas. So has the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who is just about to contribute to the debate. Post offices have been dealt with in a silo, entirely separately from the concerns of Defra and of the rural community more widely. Post offices are but one of the losses of services, both public and private, in rural areas. The losses have taken place partly as a result of market changes and demography and partly as a result of government decisions over recent years. It is much better that the issue is placed in that wider context, with an influential body that can influence government policy in a wide range of areas, rather than in the narrow area of departmental Post Office sponsorship by the DTI. That is what I see the new National Consumer Council doing.
	In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I say that the new National Consumer Council is primarily about strategy and issues of broad concern to consumers and not so much about individual complaints. In this wider context, the strategy on the Post Office network can best be dealt with by a larger, more all-embracing body. If we put back the Post Office consideration until 2010, as is suggested by the amendment, we will fall short of achieving the Bill's objectives in a relatively short timetable. On the immediate issue of the current review of rural post offices, Postwatch is already setting up the way in which that will be conducted. It needs to get expertise from the National Consumer Council and the Commission for Rural Communities to broaden the base of that review. It can go on; it will have started by the time the new organisation reaches its vesting date, and it will continue thereafter. It is a ring-fenced process that is dealt with somewhat separately from the rest of Postwatch's activities. Therefore, it will not be jeopardised by creating the new organisation. Clause 15 specifically requires the new council to conduct an assessment of the network of rural post offices, in the same way as Postwatch currently has this obligation.
	That responsibility is preserved. The influence on future post offices will be stronger, and the context in which such rural services are delivered will be broadened in a way that, as a whole, ought to benefit the rural consumer and not simply be seen in one dimension depending on the Government's attitude to the Post Office in general. Rural consumers and indeed urban consumers who have lost their post offices in recent years will be better protected under this system. The sooner we introduce it, the better it will be.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Razzall. It does not state that the merger shall never take place; it accepts that, in time, that may be the best thing, and the Government have put a strong case for it. I understand the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that that should happen now. Without in any way doubting his competence to manage the whole process, it is over-optimistic of the Government to expect that to happen at a time of enormous upset in the post office service and at a time when a consultation on the closure programme is under way. Notwithstanding the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, says that that process is ring-fenced, however much that is the case, you cannot stop disheartened staff leaving because they do not see a future for them within a new organisation. You cannot stop the expertise leaking out.
	All we are suggesting is a delay until 2010 and that Parliament will have another look at the matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who spoke on this issue at Second Reading—I fully understand why she could not be present in Committee—was quite right to say that the Commission for Rural Communities had been pretty silent on this. As she will know, I opposed the setting up of that quango, which can be no more than a voice. However, it is supposed to have direct access to the Prime Minister through its rural advocate and I wonder what he has been saying recently on this issue to the Prime Minister and if it has had any effect at all.
	The amendment will provide a chance for the Post Office reorganisation, as the Government might euphemistically call it, to take place under detailed scrutiny from Postwatch, which it is best placed to deliver because it has been working on this issue for several years. No one can take its place in that regard. Our amendment offers a middle way. We are not saying that the reorganisation should never happen but simply that it should not happen at this time of enormous turbulence for the Post Office, which provides a crucial service for people in rural areas and is equally important for people in suburban and urban areas.
	Finally, noble Lords on the Conservative Benches have raised the issue of the business sector. The business sector has asked me to express its disappointment at the Minister's response on this issue. In particular, a letter stated that,
	"no detailed responses were made about the need to preserve sector-specific expertise and the representation of business interests in the postal sector".
	In rural areas, nothing is more important for small businesses than the postal sector, and that applies equally to the business sector throughout the UK.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to make an order to abolish Postwatch and to make that order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. Furthermore, the Secretary of State would not be permitted to make the order before 2010.
	I recognise the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Miller, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Whitty that one of the main objectives of the Bill is the creation of a cross-sectoral consumer advocacy body that is stronger than the sum of its parts in addressing consumer issues that frequently exist across sectors of the economy. The new body must have the critical mass to engage effectively with government, regulators and industry sectors on the basis of expert and informed analysis and have the benefit of being able to draw on experience and expertise from a number of sectors. We recognise that maintaining the existing sectoral expertise in the postal services sector is vital to the success of the new body. We also recognise the importance of this in a sector that has only recently been opened up to competition.
	We had a lively and informative debate in Committee on the principle of merging Postwatch with Energywatch and the National Consumer Council, and, given the extensive prior consultation on this issue, I am not convinced that it is necessary or appropriate to subject the proposal to incorporate Postwatch into the new council to the affirmative resolution procedure at a later date.
	On timing, I understand the concerns raised by noble Lords that the postal services sector needs a strong advocacy body in order effectively to represent consumer interests in the post office network restructuring programme. In recognition of the importance of this issue to consumers, the new council will, under Clause 15, maintain the current function assigned to Postwatch of investigating any matter relating to the number and location of public post offices. Having a strong consumer advocate in the postal services sector and maintaining the sectoral expertise that Postwatch has built up and which the new council will inherit are vital to the Government's proposals for a sustainable post office network.
	We believe that delaying the inclusion of Postwatch in the new arrangements for consumer advocacy would merely prolong the uncertainty for existing staff and consumers and would increase the likelihood of staff retention problems and departures precisely at the point when Postwatch needs its staff most to feed into the post office network restructuring programme. The amendment would exacerbate the problem and be counterproductive, as it would extend that period of uncertainty, with consequent damage to morale and staff retention.
	After careful consideration, therefore, I am not convinced that a delay in the creation of the new National Consumer Council and the associated abolition of Postwatch would benefit consumers of postal services, who would be faced with a delay in the creation of a stronger consumer advocate, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Whitty, to represent their interests, and redress schemes to provide them with complaints resolution and redress as appropriate. Indeed, a delay might actually be harmful, creating a longer period of uncertainty for the existing staff of Postwatch, which I do not think was the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. We debated this extensively in Committee. I suppose that the best argument against the amendment tabled in my name and that of my noble friend is that it will be the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who is responsible for proving us wrong. However, I am afraid that I am not persuaded, for two reasons.
	First, I would be better persuaded if the world of this integrated authority to which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, refers was that which is actually going to be put in place. We already know that the Department of Trade and Industry lost the internal turf wars and failed in its attempt to have a number of other councils, in particular the transport one, merged into the empire of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
	Secondly, the Government have already conceded that water will not come in until 2010. I am not sure why the arguments that apply to water do not apply in spades to the Post Office and the Royal Mail, for all the reasons that I set out. I do not want to repeat those arguments, as we know what they are, but on this occasion I should like to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 40) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 138.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Gambling: Casino Advisory Panel Report

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the recommendations of the independent Casino Advisory Panel. The panel has today published its report, and I should like to thank Professor Crow and his colleagues for their work."Before I turn to the recommendations, I should like to remind the House of the context in which we are allowing new types of casino. Gambling is on the increase. People want to gamble, and technology allows many new forms of gambling. Existing regulation is inadequate and leaves people exposed. So, through the Gambling Act 2005, we have placed the protection of children and other vulnerable people at the heart of gambling regulation for the first time. "Yet if I believed everything I read in the papers about the Gambling Act, I would never have introduced it. So let me make it very clear: Las Vegas is not coming to Great Britain. British casinos will be subject to new controls, the strictest in the world."For example, Las Vegas-style tricks of the trade will not be allowed. There will be no free alcohol to induce more gambling, and there will be no pumped oxygen to keep players awake. It will be a criminal offence to permit a child to enter the casino or the gambling area of the regional casino. All casinos will require staff trained to spot the signs of problem gambling and intervene where necessary. If they do not, they risk losing their licence."It was safe in the knowledge of these protections that we took the decision, in response to demand from local authorities, to allow a limited number of new casinos. Sixty-eight local authorities, representing all the main political parties, subsequently made applications to the panel. The Act allows 17 in total: one regional, eight large and eight small. Because the new casinos will be different from those we have seen before, and because we have listened carefully to the concerns of Members and their constituents, we thought it was right to be cautious."Now I can say this in 50 different languages, but the message would be the same: we cannot allow and will not even consider allowing any further casinos until a proper evaluation over time has been made of the effect of these 17 casinos on problem gambling, and such a decision would require a debate and vote in both Houses of Parliament in any case."We have commissioned a group of academics led by Lancaster University to advise on the methodology for that assessment. The baseline study will be undertaken later this year, once Parliament has approved the new areas. The assessment process will be in place in good time for the opening of the first new casino. The assessment will not be completed until at least three years after the award of the first licence. The work is in addition to the prevalence studies of patterns of gambling, which we are undertaking every three years from 2007. The benchmark prevalence study is currently under way, and the findings will be published this autumn, when the Gambling Act takes effect. The findings of the next prevalence study will not be published until autumn 2010. I therefore wish to make it crystal clear to the House that these safeguards preclude any consideration of further casinos for the lifetime of this Parliament."I am required by the Act to make an order identifying the local authorities where the 17 new casinos should go. So, in October 2005, I established the Casino Advisory Panel, under Professor Stephen Crow. The primary consideration for the panel throughout has been to ensure that the areas facilitate the best possible test of social impact. Subject to that consideration, I also asked the panel to include areas in need of regeneration that would benefit in employment terms from a new casino and to ensure that those areas selected are willing to license a new casino. The panel has been operating entirely independently of the Government, and I should like to place on record my appreciation for the rigour and professionalism that Professor Crow and his colleagues have brought to the process."This has been an open and transparent process throughout, and the views of local people have been taken into account at every stage. The panel asked local authorities to include evidence of local consultation. Local people were invited to participate in the examinations in public that were held in the seven short listed areas. A number of areas, including Brent, Canterbury, Dartford, Thurrock and Woking, withdrew their applications to the panel in response to local opinion. A number of local authorities, such as Hackney, St Albans and Slough, have also taken advantage of new powers in the Gambling Act to resolve not to license any casinos in their area."After 16 months' consultation, and having considered all the evidence available, the panel has today recommended that the following authorities should be entitled to issue a small casino premises licence: Bath and North East Somerset, Dumfries and Galloway, East Lindsey, Luton, Scarborough, Swansea, Torbay, and Wolverhampton."The following local authorities should be entitled to issue a large casino premises licence: Great Yarmouth, Kingston-upon-Hull, Leeds, Middlesbrough, Milton Keynes, Newham, Solihull and Southampton. And that Manchester should be entitled to issue the one regional casino premises licence permitted by the Act."I congratulate Manchester and the other recommended towns and cities on their success and I acknowledge the disappointment of those towns and cities that have not been recommended. "I received a copy of the panel's report just this morning. Because I am also conscious of the need to maintain the integrity of the independent process that we have established, it is only fair to all the applicants that I should take the time to consider its contents carefully. I am also required by the Gambling Act to consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers."I am therefore announcing today that, following this consultation with the devolved Administrations, I am minded to return to this House at the earliest opportunity with an order which will enable Parliament to consider the panel's recommendations and vote on the order. The order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and the debate will be held on the Floor of the House. This means that Parliament will rightly determine the outcome of this process. "Gambling will always be a sensitive issue, and I understand the reservations that some Members and others have about casinos. However, I have always sought to ensure that the Government proceed cautiously, with the strongest possible safeguards and on the basis of the best evidence of public protection in the face of rising public demand. That is what we have done."Once again, I thank Professor Crow and his panel for the thoroughness of their work and I commend this Statement to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier today in another place. I am sure that the choice of Manchester is a good one, but I find it difficult to join in the general congratulations when the whole concept of dramatically expanding the gambling industry in this country is so flawed. I find it even more difficult to understand why Her Majesty's Government should be so keen on this course of action when organisations such as the police and the British Medical Association have come out so strongly against the expansion of gambling because of the problems associated with it
	For those who wish to gamble there already exists a plethora of ways of so doing, from the internet to the racecourse and plenty of stops in between. Casinos such as are proposed will only introduce new punters who might otherwise never have gambled. A proportion of those will become addicts, resulting most probably in the destruction of their and their families' lives.
	I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will treat this properly as a pilot scheme to thoroughly assess the impact of these casinos, rather than just looking on the pilots as a method of introducing massive expansion of gambling through the back door, in the way that the 1968 Act has been used to give initial approval to 90 casinos.
	Her Majesty's Government's commitment to a proper evaluation of the effect of the 17 casinos on problem gambling is welcomed. A rigorous set of criteria for evaluating the success or failure of the pilot scheme will do much to restore faith that Her Majesty's Government have a desire to learn from what happens and to act accordingly.
	It would be interesting to hear from the Minister how Manchester came to be chosen when it was ranked only sixth in the original shortlist and whether the preferred bidder will be Kerzner International.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place and join in thanking Professor Crow and his team for their work. We welcome the fact that there will be the opportunity to debate the affirmative order. There is clearly some surprise—indeed, shock—in Blackpool and Greenwich at the outcome—

Noble Lords: And in Manchester.

Lord Clement-Jones: And in Manchester, my Lords, as my noble friends point out.
	No doubt the report will repay further reading in the run-up to that debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us a little more about the timing of the debate, so that we will really have the opportunity to examine the grounds on which the decision was made, which has obviously been such a disappointment to many in those two areas.
	This House, like the other place, will be surprised by the Secretary of State's statement:
	"We thought it was right to be cautious".
	Just before the general election, it was the opposition parties who were urging caution on the Government about the spread of casinos, especially the regional casino concept, not the Government. The Government were very gung-ho for the concept of eight super-casinos.
	I very much welcome what the Secretary of State said today about not expanding the number of casinos beyond 17 until their ability to aid regeneration while not increasing problem gambling has been thoroughly tested. I hope that the Minister can confirm that we will be able to debate the methodology to be suggested by the University of Lancaster: how it is judged whether regeneration can take place without increasing problem gambling.
	Today's announcement of 17 new casinos has hit the headlines, but the Minister may cast his mind back to a programme just this weekend that revealed that 68 new licences have been approved by the Gambling Commission in the past two years. Although some have had premises licences refused, that could lead to another 40 or 50 casinos on top of today's 17. There are even more applications in the offing. How does that square with the statement by the Secretary of State that the Government will not even consider allowing any further casinos until proper evaluation has been made of the 17 announced today?
	Why did Mr Richard Caborn say two years ago that,
	"we can say with certainty that there will be no more than 150 casinos. There could be fewer"?—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 11/1/05; col. 718.]
	Was that not a complete misstatement? Doesn't it look as though there will be more than that? What will be the final total of new casinos? I also wonder whether the Secretary of State regrets saying about three years ago:
	"If this legislation"—
	the Gambling Bill—
	"gave rise to an increase in problem gambling then it would have failed and it would be bad legislation".
	She said in a recent "Any Questions" broadcast that,
	"every single bit of change in legislation, if it proves to give a rise to harm, will be rescinded".
	Can the Minister confirm that that is indeed government policy?
	Then we have the issue of expenditure on problem gambling. Given that we spend £270 million on treating alcohol addiction, should not the gambling industry be paying much more than the current £2.5 million to the main body that helps deal with gambling addiction? Will the Government ensure that the new casinos make a proper contribution to help fund solutions to gambling addiction?
	At least in the Statement, the Minister committed to no further growth in gambling opportunities until we test out what we already have and are likely to have following today's announcement. I very much hope that he will confirm that that is rock-solid government policy. We look forward to the debate on the affirmative resolution.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords for their comments on the Statement. I must emphasise again in response to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, that this is to be a pilot scheme. He expressed anxiety on that score. We have made it absolutely clear that we have no intention of introducing further legislation that might increase the number of casinos—if it is ever mooted—in this Parliament because we will take time to evaluate the impact of the casinos on their localities. I emphasise that one key feature that came through from Professor Crow's report, which the House will have the opportunity to deliberate more intensively as time goes on, is that he is concerned about the areas in which casinos are located. The impact of the regional casino should be measurable.
	I do not want to go into the relative merits of the claims in great detail at this stage, but one relevant factor that Professor Crow considered with regard to Blackpool—I can see one or two noble Lords itching to rise to advance the cause of Blackpool, which we all recognised had some strength—was that quite a large transient population would be participating in casino activities, whereas with the city of Manchester the advantage is that it will be much more locally oriented and therefore give us a chance to examine fully in the pilot scheme the impact of the casino on the locality.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howard, was somewhat unfair in his reference to Kerzner and its association with the Manchester bid. Associated with a number of the major bids were some big gaming interests and organisations. That is how those bids could be rendered credible. But that was about constructing the nature of the bid. Manchester and the other authorities now have to engage in a full competitive process and the large companies that have been associated with particular bids have neither an advantage nor a disadvantage. They start in a fully competitive position as far as the local authority is concerned. I understand the anxieties expressed, but decisions on applications are made by the local authority. The panel made absolutely clear that they needed local backing, and the strength of local consultation was that it helped to establish that fact.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, says that the announcement has shocked. I am sorry if he is shocked by the outcome. If by that he means that he had already made up his mind where the casino was going, that merely reflects a prejudgment—dare I say, even an element of prejudice—when the panel was going about its job in a dispassionate, evaluative way. It reached its conclusions, which the Secretary of State will put before Parliament in due course after having consulted the Welsh and Scottish devolved authorities. She will put before both Houses the recommendations of the panel, which will be subject to an affirmative resolution and debated.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also said that we did not know the final number of casinos. Of course we do not because, believe it or not, the Government do not dictate the final number. We provided in legislation for the "one plus eight plus eight" formula for this group of casinos, but there are local decisions under the 1968 Gaming Act on which local authorities are deliberating. That is the right of local authorities. Several of them have given permission for casinos to be developed in a much more limited way than the ones described in the Act, which is the issue that we are considering today. Of course we cannot say how many local authorities will agree that a casino is of value to their neighbourhood. That is for them to judge, and it is not fair to criticise the Secretary of State.
	I hear what the noble Lord says about the gambling industry making its proper contribution to GamCare and to tackling problem gambling. We will scrutinise that most closely. Sufficient resources are being devoted to GamCare and to other bodies that tackle problem gambling. We have reserve powers to insist that a contribution is made, but we expect the gambling industry to show the right level of responsibility.

Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, what possible justification can there be for the Government to produce legislation to increase opportunities for gambling at a time when individuals throughout society are plunged into record levels of debt? What moral or social justification is there for that? Can we at least draw some comfort from being spared the ultimate degradation of a casino at the unfortunate, disastrous Dome?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says, but he has probably not cast his mind back to one significant increase in debt in this country, when the Conservative Government decided that they would turn regular weekly rent payers into mortgage holders with accumulated debt. That was a decision of the Conservative Government at that time. Mortgages are a significant part of household debt, but we also recognise that the British people can manage their debt effectively because they understand the true costs of that debt and the fact that we can sustain low interest rates and low inflation. Consequently, the debt is manageable.
	I did not mention the Dome. I am sorry if the noble Lord is disappointed that the Dome does not feature significantly in this Statement, but it does not.

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, the Millennium Dome is in my diocese, and I am anxious that a good long-term use be found for that remarkable building. Nevertheless, I am relieved to hear that the first super-casino in Britain is to be in Manchester, as such a casino will inevitably bring new problems of gambling and I am pleased that those problems will be tackled in Manchester rather than in south London. However, the people of Manchester have my sympathy. I hesitate to say that these problems will be faced first in Manchester, as media reports suggest that the Government are planning to accelerate the number of super-casinos to be authorised.
	I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I was relieved to hear him give such a clear assurance that the rumour has no foundation and that the lessons to be learnt from the pilot super-casino will be carefully pondered and examined before future super-casinos are planned. We on these Benches will certainly be looking to see that promise fulfilled.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate, although he re-introduces the issue of the Dome, on which I was slightly dismissive in my response to the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, for which I apologise. The right reverend Prelate will take some joy from the fact that one of the features of the Greenwich application, on which the panel commented, is that there is a great deal of redevelopment in the Greenwich area at the moment, to the great benefit of the locality. The panel sees that position being enhanced. The casino would not have added sufficient value to that development. As he will know, there are several proposals for the development of the Dome within that framework, many of which have exciting aspects. A great many of London's facilities will be enhanced in preparation for the Olympic Games in 2012, and we anticipate that the Dome will be utilised then.
	The right reverend Prelate says that he feels slightly sorry for the city of Manchester, which will be subject to the pilot study. That is not the view of Manchester or its people, who are delighted with the outcome of today's deliberations.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, there will clearly be some enthusiasm for this announcement, no doubt not least from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—quite apart from Manchester and the other local authorities, as we have heard from the Minister. No doubt they will have negotiated other benefits for their area in addition to extra jobs. However, as noble Lords have already heard, there is considerable concern among Members on these Benches and people throughout the country. In a YouGov poll, 56 per cent of citizens were worried that this would lead to more addiction and more social problems. Of course we are glad to hear that the Government are committed to monitoring seriously the likely effect of these casinos. With that in mind, however, can the Minister tell us what assessment the Government made, before embarking on this rash of casinos, of the cost of supporting—and, one hopes, reforming—each additional addict and their family, including the vulnerable children who will be affected, and the local community, which, as we have heard, is likely to be subjected to extra crime? Will the Minister also assure this House that at least this cost will be the first charge on the profits of every casino company involved?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this issue. This gives me the opportunity to correct a slight slip that I made a moment ago. Local authorities organise the bids for super-casinos in their areas, but the decisions to create casinos under the 1968 Act are taken by local licensing magistrates, not by local authorities, and I apologise for that slip.
	The noble Baroness mentioned the Gambling Act 2005. The motivation behind that Act was not to create casinos—the casinos are a by-product of that Act—but the fact that our gambling laws dated from 1968 and were woefully misplaced to deal with modern gambling, not least the development of online gambling, which presents a real challenge for regulating authorities. The development of new forms of gambling meant that we had to address the fact that the 1968 Act was out of date. That was the principle behind the Gambling Act, which was also the background to decisions about the casinos, as the noble Baroness rightly recognised. Concern was expressed throughout our consideration of that Act that the nation should balance the obvious increase in the participation in gambling of our fellow citizens who, with increased disposable income, are both entitled and in many cases expected to use that income for gambling, from which they derive a great deal of innocent and proper pleasure, against the necessity of dealing with problem gambling and addiction, in particular the impact on children. The Gambling Act sets out to reach that balance. It was the result of very considerable deliberations in the other place and this House. We think that we have reached the right balance.

Baroness Golding: My Lords, it is very nice to hear people congratulating Professor Crow and his committee. However, I do not congratulate him on the regional casino: it should not be in Manchester. I spent a very long time on the pre-legislative Select Committee looking at different areas and all the things that I assumed Professor Crow was looking at. Blackpool would be a resort casino; the Dome would be a destination casino; and Manchester would be a city casino. The Select Committee said that the casino should not be in a city. I went to Australia and saw the damage caused by having a casino in a city.
	The Minister mentioned regeneration around the Dome. What regeneration has there been in Blackpool? The answer is none. What has there been in Manchester? There has been a lot. Blackpool needed this: it was waiting for it and will need it still. Why do we hand over to an academic committee something that should be decided by this House and the elected Members in another place? Can the Minister answer that?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I have indicated, the final decision will rest with the other place and this House. When the order is considered, I have no doubt that very similar speeches to that which my noble friend has hinted at today will be made here and in the other place. Indeed, she may be a participant in that debate. Therefore, all these issues will be aired. The House will have the opportunity to look carefully at Professor Crow's report. I can merely report that the judgment that my noble friend reached is different from that reached by the professor and his panel.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I assure the Minister that I have never been prouder that I took the title Lord McNally of Blackpool, especially with the town's dignified and resilient response to today's news. The Minister mentioned Professor Crow's report. As the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, has just indicated, the report dismisses with almost cavalier economic illiteracy the Blackpool economic case. I sometimes think that if Blackpool was a steel, coal or cotton town, the impact of declining tourism would be greater appreciated.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, also pointed out, the Minister gives a smooth government decision-making process. I wonder what the royal commission set up to look into this matter thinks about this or what the Joint Committee thinks. The wheel has turned many times and it is unfortunate that this one has turned against Blackpool when the strongest arguments were in Blackpool's favour.
	Two points really worry me. We have suddenly found that this inner-city casino has the merit of being able to test social gambling—quite so. Every study at home and abroad has warned against "door-step gambling"—gambling on the door step. Professor Crow says that,
	"most of the social effects",
	as would affect Blackpool,
	"would be exported".
	He means that people would go to places like Blackpool for two weeks for holiday enjoyment of gambling. At a door-step casino like Manchester, they will stay with the problem and will create the problem. In many ways, it is the most perverse decision that could be made and is against all the warnings of research.
	There is another extraordinary thing in the report. It states that,
	"Manchester ... is one of England's eight 'Core Cities'",
	which drives,
	"national and regional economic growth".
	When and where from did the committee get this information and why were the other applicants not told that this special privilege would be given to core cities as against places like Blackpool?
	I should like to make one further comment to opponents of casinos. We have all watched James Bond and George Raft films and the problem with casinos is that they are a nice, emotive issue. In fact, while opponents are obsessing about casinos, the real problem gambling will go on tonight on ITV when people can spend 75p a minute on television quizzes from their beds or make bets from their telephones. The most regulated and most easily controlled problem gambling is at a destination casino. The worst kind of casino is in an inner city where problems are waiting for it and where those problems will fester.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who deserves a response to his powerful contribution. He has been unwavering in his advocacy of Blackpool as the location and will get the opportunity for further debate on whether this recommendation should come into effect across the country. He will have the chance to make that advocacy. The noble Lord has presented the great strengths of the Blackpool case. There were great strengths among all bidders in the final group which were considered for the super-casino. Earlier, I reflected in the briefest way possible with regard to the report some factors which were considered by the casino panel.
	Of course, there will be disagreement with its conclusions. By definition, there would always be more disappointed towns and bidders than successful ones, which is in the nature of this kind of exercise. However, in one respect, the panel was absolutely clear: a crucial aspect of the Manchester bid was that it gave the best possible circumstances for considering problem gambling in the pilot location. That is the basis of its recommendation. We will in the future have the chance to deliberate on those points.

Lord Steinberg: My Lords, I declare an interest. When the Gambling Bill last came before the House, I was the non-executive chairman of Stanley Leisure. Since then, it has been sold as the result of a takeover and I am now life president. Stanley Leisure had 45 casinos, including three in Manchester, so I, living in Manchester, welcome the casino being situated there.
	The decision was difficult and, as a result, I hope that there will not be a series of judicial reviews which will halt the process even further. Some of the more hysterical newspaper reports say that the whole thing is a disaster. I put it to the Minister that Great Britain has the lowest rate of problem gambling in the world. I am proud to be a founder member of GamCare, an organisation that helps to look after problem gamblers. To my knowledge, casinos here keep a tighter control on problem gambling than those in other countries. I commend that and long may it continue. I hope that the comments about crime, prostitution and money laundering are all basically figments of journalistic licence. We have never had a case of problem gambling. We have never had a case involving crime or prostitution. I hope that the Minister will continue that record.
	However, I have a few questions—

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening. This is a Statement and it is not intended that speeches should be made.

Lord Steinberg: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is saying. I have the following questions for the Minister. Will he give an undertaking that the current opening hours for casinos will remain the same? Will he give an undertaking that advertising will not be broadcast on television or radio before 9 pm? Will the Minister also try to deal with online gambling, which is becoming an extremely difficult problem? I hope, with my years of experience, that I have been of some help to the Minister.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the one point on which the noble Lord and I agree strongly is that this was a very difficult decision. Everyone recognises that the bids put in had enormous strengths, and of course several noble Lords have sought to identify the strength of certain cases.
	We have the best regulated gambling industry in the world. We have the lowest rate of problem gambling, as the noble Lord indicated, and we intend to keep it that way. However, we cannot avoid the fact that there are now many new activities which involve gambling or something very close to it. Even the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to that when he commented on the development of quiz games on television, which are now causing concern in terms of the nature of gambling. It is because of that that we needed the Gambling Act 2005. It will stand us in good stead to guarantee that we keep a high level of regulation. I want merely to emphasise that within that level of regulation, the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Steinberg—there are far too many for me to respond to at the end of our debate on a Statement—are covered.

Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL]

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
	Clause 30 [Designation of the Consumer Council for Water for abolition]:

Lord Razzall: moved Amendment No. 41:
	Clause 30, page 17, line 28, at end insert—
	"(5) The consultations set out in subsection (3) shall not take place before 2011."

Lord Razzall: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 41 while still feeling somewhat shell shocked by the events of the past two minutes. I thought that my noble friend Lady Miller would move this amendment, but its substance is quite clear:
	"The consultation set out in subsection (3) shall not take place before 2011".
	It is very much on a par with the arguments I made on a previous amendment. The thrust of many of our amendments has been to seek to delay the implementation of certain clauses of the Bill. That is the purpose of this amendment and no doubt my noble friend Lady Miller will put the case more articulately than me. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Razzall, and I certainly could not improve on his ability to introduce the amendment. I should apologise to the House because I was delayed briefly in the Minute Room. Following our earlier discussion, I realise that the Government are intransigent on this matter. The purpose of this amendment is to highlight water issues. I do not want to repeat my previous comments because the Report stage should not be used for repetition. However, since we considered these issues in Committee some more material has become available about the link between the price review and the timing of river basin management plans for the water framework directive.
	The regulator operates on a five-year cycle for the water price review and is therefore out of sync with the six-year cycle governing river basin management plans. The consumer is caught between those two processes, which is an uncomfortable place to be. This issue, which is a complicated one if you are not part of the water process, is as imperative for customers as the Post Office. It is vulnerable to the fluctuations that will take place as the Consumer Council for Water, which was created only very recently, is subsumed into the NCC. The Government have recognised some of the issues here because they have built a delay into the Bill. I therefore suggest to the Minister that there would be advantages in putting back this merger at least until after the next price review and the river basin management plan are put into effect. By then we will have one river basin management plan under the belt, so to speak, making it a much more auspicious moment to bring this provision forward.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, Amendment No. 41 seeks to delay the consultation on the merger of the Consumer Council for Water into the new council until 2011. We had a thoughtful debate on this issue in Committee and perhaps I may reiterate some of the key points that were made. One of the fundamental objectives of the Bill is to create a stronger cross-sectoral consumer advocacy body while making consumer representation and redress simpler and more effective. Key to the success of the new body is the retention of sectoral expertise, and this will be equally as important in the water sector as it is for the energy and postal services sectors. The new council will also benefit from the ability to share best practice from different sectors. So, for example, if the Consumer Council for Water is merged with the new council after the consultation in 2008, the council will have the benefit of not only the existing sectoral expertise in the water sector but also experience from other sectors of representing the consumer interest in a price review.
	The public consultation held by my department this time last year sought views on the best time to consider the question of the inclusion of the water sector in the new arrangements. Some respondents suggested that the consultation should be later than the proposed date of 2008. However, as I said in Committee, many other respondents believed that the water sector should be included from the outset. We considered carefully the representations made to us and took the view at the end of the consultation that we would consult on the inclusion of the water sector in 2008, recognising that the Consumer Council for Water needs time to establish itself and to start tackling the important objectives it has been given before assessing whether these arrangements are the most effective for consumers. I repeat, though, that the commitment is that we would consult on the inclusion of the water sector in 2008.
	I recognise that there are many important forthcoming issues in the water sector, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. There is a price review in 2009 and the ongoing work on the water framework directive will require a strong consumer advocate to represent the consumer interest. It is important that we hold the consultation on the merger of the Consumer Council for Water with the new council earlier than 2011 to ensure that the most effective arrangements are in place to represent the consumer interest.
	I also acknowledge the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, raised in Committee about the important environmental role assigned to the Consumer Council for Water and her belief that that role should not be lost. I believe that our earlier discussion on the new council's sustainable development objective will have demonstrated to it the importance of that role. I can assure noble Lords that if the Consumer Council for Water is merged with the new council after consultation, we will seek to ensure that the crucial and very best elements of the current body are retained in the new council.
	I am therefore still not convinced that the amendment represents the best way forward for consumers in the water sector at this time.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister on behalf of myself and my noble friend Lord Razzall for giving the most cheering reply we have had all day to any of the amendments. His reply has significantly recognised the issue, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 37 [Removal of the Council's functions in relation to Northern Ireland]:

Lord Truscott: moved Amendment No. 42:
	Clause 37, page 21, line 34, at end insert—
	"( ) section (The territorial committees)(3A)(c) (functions which Northern Ireland Postal Services Committee is authorised to exercise);"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 41 [Interpretation of Part 2]:

Lord Truscott: moved Amendments Nos. 43 to 46:
	Clause 41, page 23, line 41, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 41, page 23, line 43, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 41, page 24, line 1, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 41, page 24, line 4, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Truscott: moved Amendment No. 47:
	Clause 41, page 24, line 8, at end insert—
	
		
			 "A person holding a licence under section 7(2) of the Gas Act 1986 (c. 44) (transportation licences). A person (other than a gas licensee) who is a consumer in relation to services provided by a gas transporter (within the meaning of Part 1 of that Act). The Gas and Electricity Markets Authority"

Lord Truscott: My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. The provision in the Bill for redress schemes for gas and electricity extends to consumers in their relationship with suppliers of gas and electricity. We wish to extend that provision to cover instances where the consumer needs to have a direct relationship with a gas transporter or an electricity distribution company, the network companies responsible for the system of pipes or cables that deliver the energy supplies to the end user.
	For most purposes, the relationship is between the consumer and the supplier. That is intentional in order to avoid complexity. There are instances, however, where the consumer needs to have direct dealings with the distributor. In many instances, this will be when a new mains gas or electricity connection is requested. A new connection may prove to be expensive in some cases and there is provision in existing legislation for quotations to be referred to the regulator, the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, for determination of the amount to be paid by the consumer.
	The Gas and Electricity Markets Authority has indicated, however, that there are instances where its powers of determination may not prove to be adequate to deal with consumer complaints against distributors. At the same time, the authority considers that there will in future be potentially greater scope for consumers to need to have direct contact with distributors, particularly on issues concerning distributed generation. For these reasons we seek to extend the scope of the redress schemes to cover that potential need for redress for consumers.
	Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 53 extend the scope of the requirement to belong to redress schemes to transporters and distributors, and Amendments Nos. 82 and 84 extend the classes of membership of redress schemes that are required to be approved by the regulator. These amendments would mean that the new classes of regulated providers will also be subject to the regulator's power to lay down standards for handling complaints by relevant consumers in Clause 42, and the provisions for the council to publish information about complaint-handling standards in Clause 44 and to give information to relevant consumers in Clause 45, as well as making the new regulated providers subject to the power to require membership of a redress scheme in Clause 46. The amendments also have the effect of ensuring that potentially a distribution company or a transporter in its capacity as a customer of a supply company should be within the scope of those able to use the redress scheme as would any other customer.
	I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a very worthwhile addition to the Bill's consumer protection and redress provisions. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Truscott: moved Amendments Nos. 48 to 53:
	Clause 41 , page 24, line 13, at end insert—
	
		
			 "A person holding a licence under section 6(1)(c) of the Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29) (distribution licences). A person (other than an electricity licensee) who is a consumer in relation to services provided by an electricity distributor (within the meaning of Part 1 of that Act). The Gas and Electricity Markets Authority" 
		
	
	Clause 41 , page 24, line 26, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 41 , page 24, line 27, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 41 , page 24, line 30, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	Clause 41 , page 24, line 31, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	Clause 41 , page 24, line 31, at end insert—
	"( ) In this section—
	"electricity licensee" means—
	(a) an electricity supplier (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29)); (b) an electricity distributor (within the meaning of that Part); (c) the holder of a licence under section 6(1)(a), (b) or (e) of that Act (generation licences, transmission licences and interconnector licences), except where the holder is acting otherwise than for purposes connected with the carrying on of activities authorised by the licence;
	"gas licensee" means—
	(a) a gas supplier (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Gas Act 1986 (c. 44)); (b) a gas transporter (within the meaning of that Part); (c) a gas shipper (within the meaning of that Part); (d) the holder of a licence under section 7ZA of that Act (licences for operation of gas interconnectors), except where the holder is acting otherwise than for purposes connected with the carrying on of activities authorised by the licence."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 42 [Standards for handling complaints]:

Lord Truscott: moved Amendment No. 54:
	Clause 42 , page 24, line 35, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 44 [Information with respect to compliance with complaints handling standards.]

Lord Truscott: moved Amendments Nos. 55 and 56:
	Clause 44 , page 25, line 27, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	Clause 44 , page 25, line 31, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 45 [Supply of information to consumers]:

Lord Truscott: moved Amendments Nos. 57 to 59:
	Clause 45 , page 25, line 37, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	Clause 45 , page 25, line 39, leave out "supplier's" and insert "provider's"
	Clause 45 , page 25, line 42, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 46 [Membership of redress scheme.]:

Lord Truscott: moved Amendments Nos. 60 to 64:
	Clause 46 , page 26, line 5, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	Clause 46 , page 26, line 17, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	Clause 46 , page 26, line 25, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 46 , page 26, line 27, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 46 , page 26, line 32, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Newton of Braintree: moved Amendment No. 64A:
	Clause 46 , leave out Clause 46

Lord Newton of Braintree: My Lords, although the amendment seeks to leave out Clause 46, I should say straightaway that—as I am sure the Minister's officials will have spotted—it is designed not to wreck the entire Bill but to enable me to raise again a point that I raised in Committee. For those who wish to be keen students of my earlier speech, it was reported in Hansard on 9 January at cols. 73 to 75. My point received some support on that occasion from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, both of whom I am pleased to see in their places. My aim in moving the amendment is also to give the Minister a greater opportunity to make a fuller response to my points than he was able to give on that occasion, when I bowled him what could be seen as a bit of a bouncer.
	I again declare what I called in Committee a "potential prospective interest" in that I am chairman of the Council on Tribunals which, under a Bill that the House will be considering on Report tomorrow, will become the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council and acquire a much greater interest than it has even at present in the world of ombudsmen, which is widely seen as part of the system of administrative justice.
	The point in question is that Clause 46, and indeed the estate agents provisions later in the Bill, clearly envisages what I regard as a curious provision for multiple competing ombudsmen in the same sector. It would be wrong for me to rehearse everything that I said in Committee and I shall not do so. I shall simply reiterate the main points.
	My first point concerns the irony, if you like, that while the first part of the Bill is designed to create greater coherence and reduce confusion for consumers by setting up a more wide-ranging single National Consumer Council, there is at the same time a possibility of creating greater complexity in the world of ombudsmen. If I brought forward proposals for rival parliamentary, health service or local government ombudsmen, it would be widely regarded as ridiculous. There is no proposal for rival legal services ombudsmen. And I make no apology for repeating almost word for word one point that I made in Committee: the Government have gone to great trouble in the financial services field to get rid of about six different ombudsmen and to create a single financial services ombudsman which has worked out very well.
	As I do not intend to take up the House's time at length, I will simply observe that, so far as I can see, it is no more sensible to have competing ombudsmen than it would be to have competing courts or tribunals. It is even more curious—I might even say bizarre—that the choice is not for the customers complaining, but for the supplier against whom complaints are made—carrying, as again I said in Committee, the obvious risk that the choice of ombudsman will be influenced by the interests of the firm rather than the customer.
	I am aware, as the Minister reminded me in Committee, that there is a competing situation in telecoms. That, however, is another arrangement in which the DTI had a major hand, and it has produced a situation which is—again I use understated language—not universally regarded as a model.
	From conversations I had at the time of Committee, it was clear that there was a fairly widely held hope that the industry would achieve common sense by agreeing on a single scheme. I suspect, however, that the amendments we have just passed, widening the definition from providers to suppliers, may carry a risk of reducing that likelihood.
	There is another irony. In his speech in response to my amendments in Committee, the Minister referred to the fact that,
	"In approving the redress schemes, the relevant regulator will be required to have regard to established good practice"—
	now "best practice", I think—
	"such as, for example, the guidance published by the British and Irish Ombudsman Association".—[Official Report, 9/1/07; col. GC 78.]
	As I said in Committee, if we are going to quote the British and Irish Ombudsman Association, as I myself did in Committee, its view of best practice is that it is right to have only one ombudsman in any given sector.
	I hope the Minister will reflect again on what I have said. We have here an approach that does not appear to be adopted by any other government department, with the possible exception of the DCMS, does not correspond with the advice of BIOA, and, in my view, does not correspond with the interests either of the consumer or of common sense. I hope we might hear a clear explanation from the Minister of just what is the department's reasoning in coming up with this proposal, which could lead to competing ombudsmen in this field. I beg to move.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, Clause 46 allows the Secretary of State to make orders requiring regulated service providers to belong to a redress scheme. It specifies that such a scheme must be approved by the relevant regulator or be administered by the Secretary of State or a person appointed for this purpose, and designated as an appropriate redress scheme. Before an order can be made under the clause, the Secretary of State must consult the relevant regulator and others with an interest in the matter.
	A redress scheme is defined as a scheme under which consumers' complaints may be made to, and investigated and determined by, an independent person. The independent person must be independent of the service provider against whom the complaint is made and the relevant regulator in relation to that service provider. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that there is at least one redress scheme in existence that service providers who are required by any order to belong to a redress scheme are able to join before making such an order. In the event that there is no scheme established by industry, this clause makes provision for the Secretary of State to establish one.
	Subsection (5) requires that the Secretary of State seeks the consent of Welsh Ministers before making an order that relates to a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker for an area that is wholly or fully in Wales.
	I recognise the concerns that have been expressed on this point and in Committee, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I understand that some noble Lords would prefer that the Bill provided for only one redress scheme to be established in each sector. As drafted, the Bill leaves open the possibility of a sectoral regulator approving just one scheme for its sector. That is indeed our policy preference; I make that clear to noble Lords. However, we do not feel that it is appropriate to prescribe that as a requirement on the face of the Bill, as it may not be appropriate in all sectors or in all circumstances. We believe that the sectoral regulators are best placed to decide the appropriate number of schemes to be approved within each sector.
	In approving a redress scheme, the provisions in the Bill place a requirement on a regulator to have regard to the total number of qualifying redress schemes available to the relevant service providers. That is intended to avoid any undue proliferation of schemes in a sector. A regulator could indeed decide that the interests of consumers would not be served by multiple schemes, and so might only approve one scheme. I consider that that would provide the greatest degree of clarity and efficiency for consumers and service providers alike. I am happy to reassure your Lordships' House that the Bill does not require there to be more than one scheme in each sector.
	We should recognise that the market sectors as they are today will inevitably change over time. What is appropriate today may well be unduly prescriptive and damaging in the future. A redress scheme set up by the current market incumbents may prove to be entirely unsuitable for new entrants in the years ahead, and could well represent a barrier to entry into developing markets—a barrier that is avoidable today.
	This clause introduces a statutory requirement for service providers in the energy and postal sectors to belong to a redress scheme, and will give consumers in those sectors greater assurance of achieving certainty of resolution of complaints.

Lord Newton of Braintree: My Lords, the Minister has probably spotted by now that I am not a natural born troublemaker, so I do not intend to seek the opinion of the House on this matter. I draw some encouragement from what he said. I cannot say that I found it wholly persuasive, when certain arguments that could have been adduced in other fields have certainly not been in the way that I touched on in my earlier remarks.
	I take some comfort from the Minister's remarks. In planning what I might say in gracefully withdrawing, more or less regardless of whatever he said, I intended to say that I took some comfort from the fact that the Bill did not make a multiple-ombudsman situation compulsory. I harbour a good deal of hope that common sense will prevail with the suppliers, the regulator or both. Indeed, I have been encouraged by the Minister's speech to think that what I regard as common sense has spread to some degree to the Department of Trade and Industry, if it is the department's declared policy preference that there should be only one ombudsman. I hope that the department may use whatever influence it has on the outcome to achieve a situation in which, whatever the legal provision, the consumer ends up with a single high-quality scheme.
	I thank the Minister for that small bit of encouragement and for the trouble he has taken over his reply. I gracefully beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 47 [Membership of redress schemes: supplementary]:

Lord Truscott: moved Amendments Nos. 65 to 67:
	Clause 47 , page 27, line 10, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 47 , page 27, line 12, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 47 , page 27, line 22, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 48 [Approval of redress schemes]:

Lord Truscott: moved Amendment No. 68:
	Clause 48 , page 27, line 31, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Truscott: moved Amendment No. 69:
	Clause 48 , page 27, line 32, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
	"(d) such principles as— (i) in the opinion of the regulator constitute generally accepted principles of best practice in relation to schemes for providing redress to consumers, and (ii) it is reasonable to regard as applicable to the scheme."

Lord Truscott: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 69 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 92. The amendments relate to Clause 48 under the Consumer Voice provisions and Schedule 6 concerning the redress provisions for estate agents. The amendments outline the matters that a regulator must take into account prior to approving a redress scheme for operation and the key features of any qualifying redress scheme.
	As currently drafted, the clauses place a requirement on regulators to have regard to generally accepted principles of good practice. In Committee, Members asked that the word "good" be replaced with "best" in this instance. I was grateful for the opportunity to have a full and frank debate on the issue. I said then that we were in agreement on the fundamental issue, which is to ensure that any approved redress scheme conforms to generally accepted criteria, such as the guidelines provided by the British and Irish Ombudsman Association, which cover issues such as independence, fairness, effectiveness and public accountability.
	Our aim is to achieve the best redress provisions for consumers without placing too onerous a burden on a regulator in determining best practice. After considering the issue carefully, we feel that simply substituting "best" for "good" would force a regulator to go through an onerous process to establish what exactly the best practice was, and possibly expose the regulator to challenge on this matter. Approval of redress schemes falls to a regulator in this instance, and the determination of what constitutes generally accepted best practice is a vital part of that process. Having considered the matter further, we have tabled these amendments, which will require regulators to have regard to such principles as, in their opinion, constitute generally accepted best practice when approving a redress scheme. It will be the responsibility of each regulator to reach that opinion reasonably to avoid legal challenge.
	The amendment to Schedule 6 also requires the OFT to have regard to,
	"such principles as it is reasonable to regard as applicable to the scheme".
	That will ensure that, in considering best practice, the OFT will consider what is best for the estate agent market, as opposed to other markets where redress schemes operate. It brings the wording of the estate agents redress provisions into line with the Consumer Voice provisions. The amendments strike the right balance. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Truscott: moved Amendments Nos. 70 to 73:
	Clause 48 , page 27, line 37, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	Clause 48 , page 27, line 41, leave out "suppliers, and those regulated suppliers" and insert "providers, and those regulated providers"
	Clause 48 , page 27, line 44, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	Clause 48 , page 28, line 1, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Wilcox: moved Amendment No. 74:
	Clause 48 , page 28, line 5, at end insert "; and
	( ) membership of such a scheme requires a supplier to have in place and operate appropriate and effective internal complaint handling procedures"

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, the amendment goes to the heart of what this Bill seeks to achieve: a new culture where responsible business practice empowers the consumer and where services are delivered and maintained cost-effectively and efficiently. The amendment would limit what could be a great deal of damage caused by an oversight in the Bill.
	I thank the Minister for bringing forward government Amendment No. 69, which now includes the phrase "best practice", to a limited capacity, within the requirements for a redress scheme. This is a step in the right direction, and I was pleased to see that the Minister had taken on board my amendment from Committee. His amendment takes the redress scheme in the right direction, but I am concerned that the wording could be circumnavigated by some redress scheme proposers to allow them to avoid making complaints-handling procedures a compulsory component of any scheme, thus creating inconsistency across the industry.
	Amendment No. 74 would ensure that no redress scheme would be approved unless it required all members to have in place and operate effective internal complaint-handling procedures. The initial function of the amendment is clear. Under Clause 46, the Secretary of State has the power to order all regulated suppliers to be members of a redress scheme; therefore, the inclusion of Amendment No. 74 would compel regulated suppliers to put effective complaints handling in place.
	It seems strange that the requirements for complaints handling are so flimsy in a Bill which postures to be the key to streamlining business and consumer relations. It is all very well offering redress to customers, but it is vital to remember that the redress scheme is the last stop in what we could describe as a journey of complaints made by the consumer. It is the last resort. If one is drawing up a Bill that is intended to align the provision of services with consumer satisfaction, a redress scheme that is designed to catch the worst failures in dealing with complaints should of necessity be designed proactively to prevent that failure in the first place.
	In 2007-08, Energywatch will receive, it tells us, 600,000 contacts from customers. Approximately 200,000 will require active intervention with the company. New arrangements will mean that, in that same year, the full burden of complaint resolution falls on those companies. This will require a major systems and process overhaul within each supplier if these complaints are to be dealt with effectively and constructively.
	Energy companies in particular do not have a good record of dealing with complaints, which are by definition technically challenging and complex. I am extremely anxious that, while the merger of Energywatch and Postwatch into the National Consumer Council could provide the perfect opportunity to relate one consumer matter with another, not only the most valuable evidence of complaints but also the effective delivery of service to the consumer, will be compromised. If complaints are not easily accessible to Consumer Voice, which will be, after all, a sign-posting organisation, the operations of trading standards bodies, the citizens' advice bureaux and regulators could be compromised by a lack of necessary information.
	The amendment does not re-invent the wheel. Indeed, a model of the system that it proposes is already successfully working in the financial services market. The Financial Services Authority already requires that membership of the Financial Ombudsman Service is dependent on an organisation having an appropriate and effective internal complaint-handling function. The Financial Services Authority goes one step further by prescribing the procedures that an organisation must follow when handling complaints, from ensuring that the complaint handler has sufficient authority to settle the complaint to offering redress.
	The energy industry is run on an entirely permissive model. Perhaps I may list some characteristic traits of our energy industry's attitude towards consumers. Not one supplier currently records all direct complaints in a manner which would meet criteria set out by the International Organization for Standardization. Not one supplier records a consumer's complaint if it has been resolved at the first attempt. Most suppliers are unable to conduct root-cause analysis of consumer complaints, so the same mistakes keep happening. No suppliers publish data on the quality of their complaints-handling services.
	I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan, in Committee, where he suggested that the Bill should take heed of the financial services industry in streamlining complaints through one ombudsman. I hope that he will support the amendment—if he is in the House—which would ensure that, while there may not be one redress scheme, there would be a guaranteed strong standard of complaints handling and, most importantly, consistency across the industry.
	I hope especially that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, whose eloquent contribution in Committee I read again with great interest, will be able to support the amendment. I remember particularly his saying:
	"It is ... important, that regulators do not have an option to specify higher standards of customer service, which they will regulate and for which there will be sanctions for failure, but have an obligation to do so".—[Official Report, 9/1/07; col. GC76.]
	I was pleased to see that he recognised the difficulties that the National Consumer Council faces. The simple truth is that complaints are set to increase as the population of this country increases and as more people use services. The new NCC, in its capacity as complaints handler, and the companies themselves are not, and will not be, equipped to process them.
	Her Majesty's Government have claimed that this Bill signals the improvement of consumer services and a future of streamlined research and response to the consumer from industry, yet the merging of bodies such as Energywatch and Postwatch, without ensuring that companies will now take on the burden of complaints, will amount to little more than wallpapering over the cracks.
	I know that the establishment of effective complaints-handling procedures will have a hugely positive impact on the combined forces of the new National Consumer Council, Consumer Voice and Consumer Direct. If consumers can expect to have problems handled efficiently and solved within a reasonable time frame, set out in advance by the company, that will reduce the impact on Consumer Direct of handling thousands of additional complaints and enquiries.
	Energywatch has emphasised that making complaints-handling procedures compulsory is the only way to achieve the dual objective of improving complaints handling and saving resources. It will allow the NCC to focus on delivering excellent research and policy work, and most importantly it will ensure that vulnerable consumers, especially those in need of additional advocacy and support, are not left behind by a so-called streamlining operation that does no more than provide a signpost that points away from the real problems that people face.
	This amendment is vital to the success of Consumer Voice as a champion for consumers. The Minister's response at Committee was somewhat limited by the large group of amendments and was therefore somewhat disappointing. I hope that he will be able to accept this amendment or, at the very least, agree to look at it and for us to come back to it at Third Reading. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, on how she introduced the amendment. We agree with the amendment and have added our name to it as an indication of that. I shall not go over the points she made—they were all good ones—save to say that I, too, was very impressed with the information provided by Energywatch, backing up the need for this amendment.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I support the general approach. It is very important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said, that the total strategy is taken into account. This Bill will not work unless effective mechanisms are in place to ensure that the companies meet the requirement to handle complaints far more effectively than, frankly, either the post or energy sector does at present.
	My only query about the amendment is whether it is in the right place; it might be made to Clause 46, which sets out the requirements on the redress scheme and the regulator. I was also slightly surprised that the leverage in Clause 42 had not attracted any amendments from the Government or anyone else in which a requirement on the regulator to ensure better complaints handling would be necessary to ensure that the companies can absorb the kind of complaints which, at the moment, are dealt with only by Energywatch and, to some extent, Postwatch. If the Government suggested that the amendment should be to another part of the Bill, I would not object, but it seems a crucial part of the approach of the Bill that we have something like this amendment in the final version and that the Government recognise that they should use all leverage on the regulator, via the redress scheme, to ensure that companies comply with a high standard of complaints handling; otherwise, the whole strategy falls. I hope that the Government, if they cannot accept the amendment, come forward with one that achieves the equivalent objective.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, the amendment requires that the existence of a functioning and effective internal complaints-handing procedure in the case of each supplier and prospective member be made a prerequisite of the approval of these schemes. The current provisions take fully into account the importance of service providers establishing effective internal procedures for handling consumer complaints. The redress provisions are based on the premise that, except in exceptional circumstances in which immediate intervention is warranted, service providers will have the opportunity to resolve disputes first hand.
	Although we understand the motivation behind the amendment, we feel that the approach we have chosen is in line with better regulation principles, a point to which I shall return. We are giving regulators the power to make regulations to prescribe complaint-handling standards that would be binding on suppliers. Information about suppliers' levels of compliance with any prescribed standards would be placed in the public domain. This is a fundamental aspect of the new model for consumer redress being introduced by these measures. We consider that, between this requirement and the requirement to belong to a redress scheme which industry must fund, suppliers will face strong incentives to introduce effective internal procedures for handling complaints.
	This amendment would place an additional burden on regulators and scheme administrators in determining whether suppliers operated appropriate and effective schemes, although I take on board the points made by noble Lords. These provisions will need to be adaptable and applied on a sector-by-sector basis, with each regulator being able to take a different approach to suit the sector's own particular requirements. In some instances, these provisions will need to work alongside existing legislation, and this will be different for each sector.
	I shall look at this issue again, but we believe that it is possible to achieve the desired outcomes mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, through the monitoring of performance, especially in the sphere of complaint-handling standards.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, thought it right to put her name to this amendment, and I thank her very much. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, stood up and said it all as chairman of the NCC.
	I got very worried during the Minister's response that he was going to say that he would not take the issue away and look at it, but I think that that is what he said. If he does not come back with an amendment to this part of the Bill perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, suggested, there may be a better place for an amendment to be made. In the belief that he will come back, having looked at this matter, I shall wait for Third Reading and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Truscott: moved Amendments Nos. 75 to 87:
	Clause 48, page 28, line 8, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	Clause 48, page 28, line 9, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	Clause 48, page 28, line 10, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	Clause 48, page 28, line 11, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	Clause 48, page 28, line 13, leave out "suppliers were to the regulated gas suppliers" and insert "providers were to the regulated gas providers"
	Clause 48, page 28, line 14, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	Clause 48, page 28, line 16, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 48, page 28, line 17, leave out "6(1)(d)" and insert "6(1)(c) or (d)"
	Clause 48, page 28, line 18, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 48, page 28, line 18, at end insert "7(2) or"
	Clause 48, page 28, line 32, leave out "supplier" and insert "provider"
	Clause 48, page 28, line 45, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	Clause 48, page 28, line 47, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness: moved Amendment No. 88:
	Before Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
	"Standards of competence
	(1) Section 22 of the Estate Agents Act 1979 (c. 38) (standards of competence) is amended as follows.
	(2) For subsections (1) and (2) substitute—
	(1) The Secretary of State will by regulations made by statutory instrument designate any body of persons as an approved body which people engaged in estate agency work, including both the sale and lettings of residential property, must belong to.
	(2) The approved bodies must make membership conditional on signing up to rules and codes of conduct, which will include—
	(a) prescribe minimum competency standards; (b) ensure that firms have adequate professional indemnity insurance and, as appropriate, clients money protection insurance; (c) require a minimum level of professional development per year; and (d) require membership of a redress scheme."

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this has been a very frustrating Bill to take part in. In Committee we were hopelessly confused by the groupings of amendments. I commend the Minister for what he has done to make the groupings much better on Report. Now that we are on Report, we have had our concentration broken by what I would consider an unnecessary intervention of a Statement when we were well over two-thirds of the way through the debate.
	As usual, I must declare my interest as a consultant to an estate agency in London. I thank the Minister very much for the letters that he has written to me and for our meeting. I am extremely grateful to him; he could not have done more to at least listen to what I had to say, although whether it moved him at all is doubtful.
	Amendment No. 88 is a revised version of the one that I tabled in Committee. In Committee a number of arguments were made against my proposals, and I should like to put the counterarguments on the record. The first was that the standards and qualifications that I wanted would inhibit competition in the industry. I believe that the reverse is true; most honest agents want some form of qualifications and are happy to obtain them. Only very recently a record number of 1,200 people sat the various examinations that the National Association of Estate Agents sets. It is interesting to know that the average age of the members of that association has fallen to only 35. I believe that the minimum competency standards should be a basic knowledge of the law, building constructions techniques and valuation techniques. The minimum competency standards set by the NAEA, which are the same as the three points that I have just mentioned, equate to an NVQ level 3.
	Another argument raised against the measure was that the problem is not incompetence but one of malpractice and lack of integrity. We all support the idea of a redress scheme but it is equally important that provisions are made for structures to be placed up front. While malpractice and lack of integrity are a problem, they are often encouraged by a combination of not having to abide by rules and codes and from a lack of adequate understanding. Exactly the same arguments can be applied to all the other professions involved in the buying and selling procedure that have to have licensing and regulation; for example, conveyancers, solicitors, surveyors and financial advisers. The Government's position that you can regulate most of the groups dealing with buying and selling but shy off when it comes to estate agents is totally illogical.
	It was argued that my concerns would be dealt with by the negative licensing powers of the Office of Fair Trading. Again this comes back to the issue that a redress scheme will punish only those who have committed a crime; it will not prevent the crime. I welcome the Government's actions on implementing a redress scheme but I believe that it should be up front and that positive licensing is the easiest and most effective method to check malpractice within the estate agency profession.
	The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said that, as usual, all I really wanted was an expensive closed shop. I counter that by repeating the point that all the other professional bodies involved in buying and selling are effectively closed shops as a result of government action. Thousands of consumers are being ripped off every year because a small number of estate agents are not qualified and are acting as cowboys in what should be a sensible profession.
	It is not the case that industry bodies are keen to control the industry themselves. Under my proposals the Secretary of State would agree what the approved body would do or require. I should like to see an approved body that would ensure minimum competency standards and indemnity insurance and client protection insurance as required. I related to the Minister the insurance that I have to carry in order to retain my membership of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
	Membership of a redress scheme is covered by the Bill. There should be a commitment to a minimum number of hours of continued professional development. That happens in most industries and it is only logical that it should be extended to estate agents.
	Consumers will be confused as in due course some estate agents will be regulated and licensed under the alternative business structures in the Legal Services Bill. A large number of the bigger estate agents want to go into partnership with lawyers and produce a one-stop shop, and they will be regulated when they do so. So we will have a dual market—some will be regulated but others will not.
	I think that the real reason the Government are refusing to act is because of what is happening in Europe. As most of your Lordships will know, the EU is looking at the whole question of standards in estate agency. Could the Minister confirm that the final draft of the proposed standards which is being drawn up is likely to be agreed in Rome in March, that there will then be a further 12 months for discussion and that the final standards will be published in March next year?
	Could the Minister also confirm that Brussels recently informed the Confédération Européenne de l'Immobilier that if countries do not take up the standards voluntarily, it will look to bring them in by directive in 2011-12? As those standards are very similar to those of the National Association of Estate Agents, I take the rather cynical view that the Government are saying, "No, we are not going to do it now because we can blame it all on Brussels in four years' time when it will be imposed on us". That is not a sensible way in which to legislate. There has been British representation in all this through the British Standards Institute. The measure has been supported by the Government, and now the Government fail to take the initiative. That is a very good reason for moving this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Lee of Trafford: My Lords, I repeat the declarations of interest that I made in Committee. I am a director of a large private property investment and development group, Emerson Development Holdings, which builds about 450 homes a year and operates its own customer charter. I have a declarable shareholding in Pochin's plc, a quoted public company in property development and building services, which has a small house-building division.
	These Benches offer broad support to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in his Amendment No. 88. I pay tribute to what he has tried to achieve in protecting the public both in this Bill and previously. He brings his years of professional experience to this subject.
	I do not wish to repeat the arguments that we made in Committee; essentially, we seek to expand the scope of the Bill to include both property lettings and direct sales from builders/developers to the public. On lettings, many tenants, particularly of cheaper properties, are by definition far less likely to be able to afford to employ qualified advisers when contemplating a tenancy. Our contention is that they need protecting from unscrupulous agents. In addition, in recent years there have been a substantial number of purpose-built flat developments for letting, particularly in our major cities. Buy-to-let investors, often with limited property experience, have bought blocks of individual flats hoping to benefit from their capital appreciation rather than developing a genuine, long-term landlord/tenant relationship. Should the property market turn down and/or interest rates rise, as they have done recently, those investors may well have to dump the properties on the market, cutting their losses and perhaps allowing an unscrupulous landlord/investor to come in. As agents of mixed qualifications and integrity are likely to be involved at a number of stages, we believe that tenants should have a right of redress. I am particularly pleased that the National Association of Estate Agents supports bringing residential lettings into this legislation.
	On sales, the approach by the noble Earl effectively enables the activities of builders/developers selling directly to the public to be classified as estate agency work and therefore subject to the redress scheme. Although the majority of such developers are usually covered by HBF or NHBC charter, we still feel that a redress scheme would provide additional protection for the public.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I support the amendment although I shall reserve my comments about lettings until we reach the next amendment. I declare an interest in that I am in the process of trying to sell a property and buy one, so I have direct experience of a number of estate agents. But perhaps those anecdotes should be recounted in the bar rather than in the House.
	My noble friend the Minister is very lucky that the NAEA seeks to raise standards through qualifications not in order to impose a closed shop but simply to improve the reputation and standing of the industry so that people like me can be provided with a better service when buying or selling a property. I should say that I am getting a good service; I do not want to cause myself more difficulties. It seems to me that the NAEA has made a sensible suggestion. I understand that since the launch of the scheme some 2,500 people have passed the NAEA's technical qualification. That has opened up access to the industry, has encouraged younger people to come in and is a way of raising standards. This measure seems to me a good idea and I hope that my noble friend will consider it sympathetically.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, Amendment No. 88, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, introduces minimum standards of competence for estate agents. I am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation of his intent behind the amendment. As he mentioned, we discussed this before. The amended Section 22 would require the Secretary of State to designate certain approved bodies that estate agents must belong to. Membership of those bodies would be conditional on agents signing up to the rules and code of conduct of the body concerned, which must include certain competency standards and requirements.
	I appreciate the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Lee of Trafford and Lord Dubs, but as I have explained before, positive licensing was looked at in detail by the OFT, which concluded that its benefits are not justified by its costs. The Government share this view. Giving trading and professional bodies control of access to the market could reduce competition and result in rising prices, to the detriment of consumers. There is little evidence that such controls would prevent rogue agents entering the market or remove those agents whose misconduct is predominantly the result of a lack of integrity, rather than a lack of qualifications.
	However, the Government support moves to develop national quality standards for residential estate agents in the UK. We see merit in that as, properly done, it can provide an incentive to raise standards. But this is a matter primarily for the industry. We do not support the imposition of compulsory qualifications and standards, which would amount to positive licensing. I recognise that the noble Earl feels passionately about this issue, which he has raised on a number of occasions over many years. I reassert the Government's intention, which is to improve the current negative licensing regime. The fact that we are setting up redress schemes has been widely welcomed. Requiring agents to join approved redress schemes and making it easier for enforcers to prove misconduct and take enforcement action is the most effective way of tackling problems in the industry without driving up costs for consumers.
	The noble Earl mentioned the European issue. At the moment, no decision has yet been taken on whether an EU directive is needed in this area.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am very grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Lee of Trafford and Lord Dubs. There are many on the government Benches who dislike the view that the Minister is taking. He has to take his brief, and that is right; but the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has put his name to a number of Bills wanting to control estate agents. The noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Davies of Oldham, have both put their names to Bills trying to deal with estate agents. Everyone knows that there is a problem, and the Government are too pathetic and weak even to try to tackle it. They are very happy to try little redress schemes; but that is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. We need to grasp this nettle, and this is the ideal Bill in which to do it.
	The Minister said that it is not justified by the cost. I take issue with him on that. Is he prepared to let thousands of consumers be ripped off for a licensing scheme that will not cost the consumer any money at all? There are lots of estate agents out there and there is a big market working. All we are saying is that there should be some form of licensing to raise standards, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said.
	I was very disappointed not to receive any support from my Front Bench. That is in marked contrast to what happened in the previous Parliament, when I received very enthusiastic support from my Front Bench. Quite rightly, I have not asked my noble friend Lady Wilcox what she thinks about it; she has a job to do. But since she has been such a doughty supporter of the consumer in the past, it must gall her that the consumer is not about to be given the protection that he, and she, so badly want.
	On the European issue, I know that no decision has been taken on a directive; that was not the question I asked. I asked the Minister two other questions, which he has not been able to answer. I did not give him notice of what I was going to ask him, but it is right that he ought to be able to reply and give me a chance to consider his thoughts. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Caithness: moved Amendment No. 89:
	Before Clause 52 , insert the following new Clause—
	"Estate agency work
	(1) Section 1 of the Estate Agents Act 1979 (c. 38) (estate agency work) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1) after "land" insert "or who wishes to let, rent or manage residential property".
	(3) In subsection (1)(a) after "such an interest" insert "or manage, rent or, as the case may be, let such a residential interest".
	(4) In subsection (1)(b) after "of that interest" insert "or the management, letting or, as the case may be, renting of that residential interest"."

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I degrouped this amendment from the previous one, because it makes a different point. The noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, mentioned it briefly and covered it well. I have two points to make in support of the amendment, which is to do with letting agents.
	This is an area of the market that has grown hugely since the passing of the Estate Agents Act 1979. There are now a vast number of people working in the residential letting market who are not covered and who need to be covered. This is where the 1979 Act needs to be brought up to date. In Committee, the Minister mentioned the tenancy deposit scheme, and he argued that that was being put into place. That is a limited scheme applying only to deposits and it does not provide independent mediation for any of the other disputes encountered in the letting process. A considerable proportion of the inquiries that the National Association of Estate Agents and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors have received relate to service issues rather than deposits. It is therefore important that residential lettings are placed on the same footing as residential sales. I beg to move.

Lord Best: My Lords, I support the amendment. I declare a recent interest, in that I have been asked to become a member of the council of the Ombudsman for Estate Agents, and I have accepted that invitation, although I have not yet taken up any duties.
	I feel sure everyone would agree that if we are regulating or providing redress in relation to estate agents, letting agents working out of the same establishments should have the same cover. The new proliferation of unregulated lettings agents is a strange phenomenon which, sooner or later, is certainly going to require some regulation. This must be the moment at which it would be easiest to incorporate that into legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, made so clear, the buy-to-let market has increased private lettings from 9 per cent of the total stock in the UK to 12 per cent since 1979, when this early definition of what an estate agent did was set out in the Estate Agents Act 1979. Things have changed completely over the past 30 years, and frankly it is simply a mistake to omit the managing and letting of properties rather than the sales thereof.
	I was proud to play some small part in bringing the tenancy deposit protection scheme, as it is now known, into being. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, it covers only tenancy deposits, which is a relatively small part of the total workload of those who are handling lettings. It certainly does not go nearly far enough to embrace what is needed in terms of regulation of new letting agencies. I am told by the Brent private tenants' association that there are now, in the mushrooming of these new lettings agencies, four lettings agents within 50 yards in Wembley, all operating in competition having been set up virtually overnight to take account of the growth in the market of private lettings. Surely it is relatively easy to correct in this new measure what is, in effect, the mistaken description of estate agency that dates back to 1979. I strongly support the noble Earl in his amendment.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is my understanding that there are far more queries and complaints about lettings through estate agents than there are about sales. One has only to talk to people or to read the newspapers to realise that people are greatly concerned that they have been dealt with badly when they have let properties and they are unhappy about that.
	We all congratulated the Government on the Bill, despite our reservations about details—and I introduced a Private Member's Bill in the previous Session. That also did not concern lettings, but that was an oversight on my part and there were some drafting difficulties. I understand from my noble friend the Minister that there are some technical difficulties with including lettings in this Bill. On the other hand, we have come such a long way in improving the situation with regard to estate agents that it would seem a pity not to deal with lettings as well. Even if there are difficulties, it is not beyond the powers of my noble friend and the parliamentary draftsman to sort this out.
	The amendment may be technically defective—I do not think that it is but that is the usual Front-Bench comment when one moves an amendment—but surely we should not miss this opportunity. It will be a long time before we get one again and if the Government are intent on dealing with the problem, why do they not deal with its totality? This is a serious issue. I urge my noble friend to look at this matter, consider whether he can support the principle and, if necessary, deal with the details of an amendment at the next stage—although I hope that he can accept the amendment as it stands.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, perhaps I may surprise the noble Earl by supporting his amendment. It is close to the dinner hour, but I like to create a little surprise on occasion. I do so because in Grand Committee the Minister said that the OFT report of 2004 did not deal with this problem, only with its remit of estate agency as then defined in the Estate Agents Act, which did not include the growing field of lettings and property management. I support the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Dubs, in saying that whatever technical difficulties there may be and despite the fact that the OFT did not consider this matter in 2004, a way should be found, either through this amendment or following the Government's consideration between now and Third Reading, so that this opportunity, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, put it, is not missed. There is nothing terribly magical about redress schemes. The scheme that is being proposed in the Bill could easily be extended now, rather than in five, 10 or 20 years, to a related problem in the work of estate agents.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, the amendment would extend the scope of the Estate Agents Act 1979 to include lettings and property management. As I mentioned in Grand Committee, the Estate Agents Act 1979 applies only to those engaged in estate agency work, and the OFT report on estate agents did not consider the case for extending it to cover lettings and property management. Consequently, we do not have the evidence base to extend the provisions of the 1979 Act in this way.
	As my noble friend Lord Dubs correctly acknowledged, amending the 1979 Act to cover lettings and property management would be difficult. Its scope is limited to issues specific to the buying and selling of land. This is clear in fundamental definitions contained in the Act, for example, "interests in land", and from the duties owed by estate agents, such as information to be given to clients. Amending the Act to make it fit for the purpose intended by noble Lords would require a lot of detailed work.
	I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lord Borrie that the Government take the issue of lettings extremely seriously. Steps have already been taken to tackle problem areas such as tenants' deposits and houses in multiple occupation. I can assure the House that the Government will continue to monitor the lettings sector and take action where they find evidence of market failure. That applies also to the wider property sector as a whole.
	However, given the views expressed in your Lordships' House this evening, I undertake to consider this matter further.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his final sentence. At long last we have a positive response from him and I am grateful. When he was appointed Minister, I was told that he would listen to and understand the House and he has shown exactly those qualities in the past couple of minutes.
	I thank the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Dubs, for their support. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, whose support is quite a change but a very pleasant change. I hope that he will continue to support me—and I will try to support him in future. The noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned the increase in the lettings market, which is the great justification for my amendment. We have moved on since 1979 and it is time that we looked at this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, mentioned the technical problems and that point was taken up by the Minister. All I can say to the Minister is that he has a very good team behind him. I remember using such comments when I was a Minister: that a matter was technical, too difficult and that there were other amendments to be made. As soon as we realised that we were going to be beaten in this House, it was wonderful how those difficulties mysteriously evaporated and the Bill was soon in good shape.
	As to possible defects in the amendment, I can always remember being told that such problems were not a major issue in this House—it was the principle of the amendment that mattered, and if that was agreed it was up to the Government to ensure that it was technically correct. So I am not worried about that.
	Given what the Minister said, it is entirely appropriate that I withdraw the amendment at this stage. If he wishes to discuss it with me and the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Dubs, Lord Lee and Lord Borrie, between now and the next stage, I am sure that we would all be delighted to try to fix our schedules to see him. I have no doubt that, having given a commitment, he will fulfil it and we will get a nice government amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 6 [Estate Agents' Redress Schemes]:

Baroness Wilcox: moved Amendment No. 90:
	Schedule 6 , page 63, line 10, at end insert—
	"23AA Code of practice
	(1) The Secretary of State must by order require a redress scheme in section 23A to adhere to an approved code of practice.
	(2) A code of practice is "approved" if it is administered by or on behalf of the Secretary of State and designated by him as an approved code of practice for the purposes of this section."

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I am mindful of the time, so I shall speak quickly on the amendment, because I am sure that the Minister will give me this in two minutes.
	We have just heard the persuasive arguments of my noble friend Lord Caithness highlighting some serious concerns about the estate agency industry. Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 represent a possible option, which I hope my noble friend Lord Caithness will be able to support. The weight of his experience would be most welcome.
	Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 would establish a code of practice that would provide standards that all estate agents' redress schemes would have to apply. This is an important distinction: it would not introduce a code of practice for estate agents; rather it would ensure that all estate agents' redress schemes had to adhere to one set of standards.
	My central worry in this Bill is that it opens up avenues for all sorts of redress schemes but does not actively encourage consistency within different schemes. My noble friend Lord Caithness has spoken with great expertise on this matter. However, at this stage, the least that the Government could provide is an assurance that we will not be left with a scenario as a result of this Bill whereby there are many and varied redress schemes, with the best estate agents signing up to the best, most vigorous redress schemes, including penalties that act as deterrents for bad practice, and agents with very little regard to the fairness of their practice, or the welfare of their customers, signing up to schemes that pose no threat and provide no incentive to better practice.
	I was pleased to have the opportunity to meet the chief executive of the National Association of Estate Agents, who was clear in saying that while his organisation would welcome licensing, consistency in some form or another was of the utmost importance in the industry today. He has written to me on Amendment No. 90. He stated:
	"If there is to be more than one estate agents' redress scheme, it is critical that they operate in the same way so that the consumers and the industry are not further confused, and so that all estate agents operate on a level playing field".
	The amendment is simple. It would require the DTI to draw up a simple code of practice to which all estate agents' redress schemes would adhere. It would achieve consistency in the industry and the confidence of the public.
	I look forward to the Minister's response and I hope that it will be positive. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, despite my noble friend's lack of support for me, I support her.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 to Schedule 6. The Government have already spelt out in the Bill the important requirements that they feel estate agents' redress schemes must make provision for in order to gain approval. Beyond this, it is left to the OFT to assess what the more detailed criteria and the procedures for approval should be.
	The minimum requirements for approval are set out in paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of new Schedule 3. In addition, taking into account Amendment No. 92, to which I have just spoken, paragraph 3 of new Schedule 3 specifies that the OFT must have regard to whether the scheme will be in the interests both of scheme members and of potential complainants, and to whether the scheme follows generally accepted principles of best practice in the OFT's opinion. Paragraph 4 requires the OFT to ensure that a scheme makes satisfactory provision for sharing information with other relevant bodies.
	Apart from the requirements set out in the Bill, the OFT can issue any further guidance that it wishes on what it would regard as "satisfactory provision" and what it regards as applicable best practice. It is not clear to us what benefit would be gained from requiring redress schemes to comply with a code of practice in addition to the criteria set by the Government in this Bill and any additional criteria set by the OFT. We are confident that, at this Report stage, the Bill contains all the safeguards that are needed to ensure that only high-quality redress schemes are approved. Although I am sympathetic to the noble Baroness's amendment, I am not inclined to support it.

Baroness Wilcox: Well, my Lords, there we are. I thought that it was a nice, simple amendment under which the DTI could whip up a code of practice. As that is not going to be, I shall just beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]

Lord Truscott: moved Amendment No. 92:
	Schedule 6, page 64, line 39, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	"(b) such principles as— (i) in the opinion of the OFT constitute generally accepted principles of best practice in relation to consumer redress schemes, and (ii) it is reasonable to regard as applicable to the scheme."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lee of Trafford: moved Amendment No. 93:
	Schedule 6, page 67, line 19, leave out "£500" and insert "£3,000"

Lord Lee of Trafford: My Lords, Amendment No. 93 seeks to raise the penalty from £500 to £3,000. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, sought to raise it to £1,000. We supported that, but wish to go further. We generally favour a light regulatory approach, due to the lack of a recognised standard within estate agency, and we feel that a redress scheme represents this light touch. Where necessary, sanctions and penalties should be tough enough to give teeth and credibility when dealing with the rogue element. Our recommendation of £3,000 is based on the fact that the average national estate agency commission is £3,300 for the selling of just one property. Surely a £3,000 fine is not unreasonable; we hope that it will send the right message. I beg to move.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, in Committee I moved an amendment suggesting that the figure be raised from £500 to £1,000. The arguments are similar here. The sum of £500 is too small; indeed, it is derisory in relation to the sums of money that are at stake in an estate agency transaction. I would have thought that anything the Minister could do to raise the figure above £500 would be sensible and welcome.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Lee, says, a fine of £500 is nothing like the detriment that someone would incur were an estate agent to foul up the transaction. If the Minister and the Government are not prepared to accept the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on compulsory licensing, it is important that the leverage that they are prepared to accept via the redress scheme has teeth and is enforceable.
	This is a general point of consumer law. In case I have not said this before, although a lot of noble Lords have pointed it out, I declare my interest as chair of the National Consumer Council as is. Across consumer law, the penalties are very low. It is important when we are enhancing consumer law that we set penalties that mean something and which ensure that the system works. I therefore ask the Government to give further consideration to the maximum fine leviable in these circumstances, so that the redress system can achieve what some of us would prefer to have been achieved via a licensing system. But if the redress system is the Government's preferred mechanism, it has to be made to work. I think that £3,000 is a reasonable stab at a maximum level and will make most estate agents ensure that they are part of a reputable redress scheme.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I supported the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in Committee and I support the noble Lord, Lord Lee, now.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, this amendment seeks to increase the maximum amount of a penalty charge notice from £500 to £3,000. As noble Lords will remember, we discussed penalty charges in Grand Committee. As I said then, there needs to be a balance between the fine being a significant sum and our recognising that this is a fine that can be imposed on the spot with very little due process involved. We think that £3,000 goes far beyond what is reasonable for an on-the-spot fine and that a fine of that level would be appropriate to impose only after proceedings before a magistrates' court.
	In addition, in a magistrates' court, the magistrate can exercise judicial discretion on the level of the fine, taking into account the circumstances of the case, whereas under a fixed-penalty scheme there is no scope for the exercise of discretion, and it would be unfair in principle to set a fixed penalty at such a high figure. That is not to say that estate agents should go unpunished. The ultimate penalty for not being a member of a redress scheme is, of course, loss of livelihood as a result of being banned.
	The maximum for a penalty charge notice under the Housing Act 2004 is £500. It seems sensible for the penalty charge regime under this Bill to be consistent with the regime under the Housing Act, which is why we believe that £500 would be reasonable here, too. Of course, an estate agent could be subject to more than one notice, each up to a maximum of £500.
	Another important point is that, although £500 may not appear at first glance to be a significant sum for estate agents, that does not ring true when we consider that a 2005 Key Note market report on estate agents found that 25 per cent of estate agency businesses did not make a profit in 2003-04. Also, many estate agency businesses are small and medium-sized enterprises. The OFT report quotes the Council of Mortgage Lenders research that found that 60 per cent of estate agents in England and Wales are small independent firms which tend to operate one office or a handful of offices in a local area.
	We may be willing to consider raising the penalty charge in an amendment perhaps along the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Dubs in Committee. I hope that, in the light of that suggestion, the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, will feel inclined to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Minister said that it would be unfair to set a limit of £3,000 for an on-the-spot fine. However, I heard him say nothing that justified that. Perhaps he could address that problem in writing to me.

Lord Lee of Trafford: My Lords, I am reassured by the support that I have had on this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and in particular from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, as well as from the Which? organisation. I am somewhat surprised by what was said about the relative financial success of estate agents. I would have thought that, in the present buoyant market, the vast majority of them were doing very nicely indeed. Nevertheless, in all the circumstances and having heard what the Minister said, I am at this stage happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment, although I suggest that we will come to this again at Third Reading.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 64 [Extent]:

Lord Truscott: moved Amendment No. 94:
	Clause 64, page 39, line 40, leave out "suppliers" and insert "providers"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	In the Title:

Lord Truscott: moved Amendment No. 95:
	In the Title, line 4, leave out "suppliers and provision requiring certain suppliers" and insert "providers; to make provision requiring certain providers"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Business

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I point out that the Question for Short Debate is now the last business today. The time limit will be 90, not 60, minutes and the limit for Back-Benchers' contributions is therefore nine minutes.

Sudan: Darfur

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking, along with international partners, to secure peace in Darfur.
	My Lords, I make no apology for asking the House to return again to the situation in Darfur. The only thing to have changed since my visit there in October 2004 has been the exponential increase in the number of fatalities. It is estimated that as many as 400,000 people have now died as a result of the attacks, and more than 2.5 million people have been driven from their homes and now require international assistance. There is documented evidence of rape and enforced disappearances, and 90 per cent of the villages in Darfur have been razed to the ground. The genocide has been orchestrated and perpetrated by the Sudanese Government-backed Janjaweed militia.
	The All-Party Group on Sudan, of which I am an officer, has documented these atrocities on a daily basis. Many of your Lordships recently attended the excellent briefings provided by the BBC World Service, sponsored by the all-party group. During that briefing, reference was made to the fragile situation in the south and the deteriorating situation in the east. My noble friend Lady Cox, who will speak later, has just returned from Sudan and will talk about the interaction of the situation in Darfur with the unfolding events elsewhere in Sudan. I am grateful to her and to other noble Lords for bringing their considerable expertise to tonight's debate.
	Among the many casualties of this conflict has been the credibility of the international institutions. The Security Council's authority has been seriously eroded; its impotence was graphically underlined by Jan Pronk, who recently wrote on his website:
	"Harassment of the UN Mission in Sudan has intensified during the last two months. Sudanese authorities can easily resort to such harassment, because they have not been challenged by UN Headquarters in New York, nor by the Security Council or by Governments of Member States. Some weeks ago one of our officials went to see the authorities in Darfur in order to raise a number of violations of human rights. The answer was exemplary of the self-confidence of those who have chosen to disregard ... criticism: 'You had better shut up"—
	they were told—
	"We can always expel you, as we have proven'".
	Those are the words of the former special representative of the United Nations; they are not from a journalist or just a rhetorical flourish. Contempt and defiance characterise the attitude of the Government of Sudan. That they have been allowed to behave with such impunity is a terrible indictment. This abject failure to protect is a parody of the UN's recently proclaimed doctrine, "The Duty to Protect". It has had devastating consequences for Darfur's indigenous people and is now having ramifications for humanitarian operations as well.
	Only today, the Associated Press reported on the withdrawal of Médecins du Monde—Doctors of the World. Eric Chevallier, its director, says that it has suspended its activities for an undetermined period. He adds:
	"The balance between the help we were able to provide and the risks our staff were taking had reached breaking point".
	The Associated Press also reported today a joint statement by six other groups, including Oxfam and CARE International, in which they say:
	"Aid workers are facing violence on a scale not seen before in Darfur, leaving access to people in need at the conflict's lowest point".
	The scale of the challenges faced by the humanitarian aid workers is graphically outlined in another joint statement, released on 17 January, by the 14 UN agencies operating in Darfur. They said:
	"In the last six months, 30 NGO and UN compounds were directly attacked by armed groups. More than 400 humanitarian workers have been forced to relocate 31 times from different locations ... Assets have been looted and staff threatened and physically harassed".
	In a plea to Governments around the world, the statement warns:
	"The humanitarian community cannot indefinitely assure the survival of the population in Darfur if insecurity continues".
	It calls for "decisive intervention". Tonight, the House will want to hear from the Minister what decisive action we are going to take to protect the people of Darfur and our aid workers, who are their lifeline.
	It is often suggested that one reason why the international community has permitted the Government of Sudan to behave with such impunity has been the gain to be made from what is euphemistically called "intelligence co-operation". Do we really believe that a country which harboured Osama bin Laden for five years and killed 2 million of its own people in the south is one with which we should be doing business at any level or one that could conceivably share in our values? History may well judge that we placed too much emphasis on erroneous attempts to gain intelligence while losing sight of the genocide, which continues to unfold before the eyes of the world.
	Africa's own assessment of the Government of President Omar al-Bashir was underlined yesterday by the African Union's very welcome decision to deny him the chairmanship of the AU in favour of President John Kufuor of Ghana—a good man and a good deed in a bleak world. We look forward to hearing from the Minister, who I know has just returned from the African Union meeting.
	In addition to strengthened international resolve, I particularly applaud the emergence of grassroots pressure groups and organisations such as Sudan Divestment UK. They are making an impact on the Sudanese Government where it hurts them most—their pockets. The Sudanese Government are dependent on foreign investment to implement their mission to eliminate the non-Arab population of Darfur. Since 2005, six US states have passed divestment legislation, replacing over $2 billion in affected securities. Currently, 25 additional US states are contemplating the enactment of similar laws.
	In the UK, there are five companies and a few dozen international companies operating in the Sudan that need to consider their investments and policies. The worst UK offenders are Petrofac and a subsidiary company of Rolls-Royce called Rolls-Royce: Marine. The Weir Group, White Nile Petroleum and AMEC also need to clarify their interests in Sudan. They should emulate the decision of Siemens last week, which announced its decision to divest, as did the London School of Economics students' union and, last night, the students' union of London University. New Hall College, Cambridge, has also endorsed divestment, and new campaigns are being started all across the country.
	In a letter to be published in the Times tomorrow, leading members of the youth wings of the major political parties—Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat, as well as the Greens and Fabians—say:
	"We call on companies that have commercial interests in Sudan to cease their financial support for the Government. Everyone can make a difference. This situation may seem overwhelming but the coalition against apartheid has shown that individual actions can and do make a difference".
	I am struck by the welcome lead that young people are taking. In the US, the Sudan Divestment Task Force, run mainly by student volunteers, has helped countless universities, companies and, more recently, the State of California, with its vast blue-chip industries, to divest billions of dollars from Sudan. Closer to home, I recently wrote to all members of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund asking whether our fund has holdings in companies operating in the Sudan. The chairman, Sir John Butterfill MP, has kindly undertaken to look into this matter at the next meeting.
	But there is also room for the Government to take some action. Does the Minister agree with the suggestion of the International Crisis Group that the Government should seek measures,
	"specifically targeting revenue flows from the petroleum sector",
	and,
	"foreign investment in, and the supply of goods and services to",
	that and associated sectors? Perhaps he will also tell us whether targeted sanctions against the four individuals named in Security Council Resolution 1672 have been taken, and what financial and travel-related sanctions have been taken against assets, security agencies and fraudulent charities identified by the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur.
	If sanctions and disinvestment are to be successful, there needs to be universal application. The danger is that the Chinese, who currently hold 40 per cent of the Sudanese oil industry, will fill the gap. In advance of President Hu's impending visit to China, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will seek to persuade China to use its substantial leverage and certainly not to seek to profit as a result of US and European companies divesting. Certainly, the signals from Beijing seem hopeful in this regard.
	The evidence that genocide is occurring in Darfur is overwhelming. The UK must be prepared to take all possible steps to bring it to an end, and both the Government and their citizens have an important role to play.
	There are two other issues which I hope the Minister will also try to address this evening. First, in December last year, the Prime Minister expressed support for a no-fly zone over Darfur. Will the Minister tell us what progress is being made to bring that about? Secondly, will the Minister enlighten us as to the current standing of the peace negotiations and his assessments of last week's reported attacks in the north and south of Darfur? Three more villages have been obliterated in the north, and 200 people killed in the south.
	When I returned from my visit to Darfur in 2004, I asked the Government:
	"If this isn't genocide, what on earth is?".
	That question, along with many others, remains unanswered. The Prime Minister said that Darfur is,
	"a scandal; not a problem".
	The UN aid agencies have called for decisive intervention. I hope that tonight's debate will underline the urgent need to take concerted and decisive action.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, it is more than timely that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is once again drawing the House's attention to what remains, as it has been for several years, the greatest manmade humanitarian crisis facing the international community. Darfur regularly slips on and off our collective radar screen as other crises displace it, or our attention flags. Yet it remains an outstanding cause of shame and reproach to all those who have some capacity and responsibility to remedy the appalling situation in the west of Sudan. Each time the matter comes up in your Lordships' House, the Government's response tends to be along the lines of one of Britain's least good poets: it is no better, it is much the same. That cannot be all we have to say on the subject.
	It has been clear for a long time that protecting the people of Darfur from the harassment, displacement, rape and killing can be achieved only with the deployment of a substantial international peacekeeping force with a robust mandate and rules of engagement. For just as long, the Government of Sudan have manoeuvred, so far successfully, to prevent that happening. That is no disrespect to the African Union, which has tried hard to step into the breach, but a shortage of material resources and numbers have hampered its efforts. It is now clear that, on its own, it cannot and should not be expected to do the job.
	The idea of a hybrid UN/African Union force now being pursued seems genuinely admirable, so long as it is pursued energetically and is not, again, hamstrung by constraints placed upon it by the Government of Sudan. Perhaps the Minister can bring some encouraging news about the constitution and deployment of such a force. Will he also say whether a hybrid force like that proposed would be fully financed, as Kofi Annan's reform proposals of 2005 suggested, by UN-assessed contributions, without which we cannot possibly hope for the African Union to bear its part of the burden?
	A peacekeeping force is not all that is required, however. It is clearly also urgent to address the shortcomings of the peace agreement reached under the Abuja process, which resulted in some rebel movements not accepting that agreement. It is right to ask those movements to suspend their armed struggle and come to the conference table, but one can persuade them to do this only if there is a conference table to which they can come, and a forum in which they can discuss their criticisms of the earlier agreement. I believe that there is currently no such conference table or forum, but perhaps the Minister can enlighten us.
	Then there is the problem of Sudan's western neighbours, Chad and the Central African Republic, which risk being destabilised by attacks launched across their borders. Has any consideration been given to preventively deploying some UN peacekeepers on the Chad and Central African side of the Sudanese border to discourage transborder operations in either direction? Such a deployment would not need the consent of the Sudanese Government, because it would not involve their territory.
	However, much revolves around the attitude of the Sudanese Government, who have hitherto been obstructive and unhelpful. Nothing will concentrate the minds of that Government more than a clear display of unity by the Security Council. Last summer's abstentions by China and Russia from the resolution authorising the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force, and their continuing resistance to bringing any effective pressure to bear on Khartoum, have encouraged the latter's obduracy. A further attempt must be made to create that essential unity. Instead of concentrating the discussion around economic sanctions, would it not be worth while for the Security Council to state formally and unanimously that it has a responsibility to protect the people of Darfur and intends to exercise it? That would clearly be seen as a warning that, in the absence of Sudanese co-operation, other measures would be considered. It might be worth trying such an approach before resorting to another discussion of economic measures.
	It is, in any case, clear that far more is at stake in Darfur than the lot of its people. This is the first clear-cut case of the responsibility of the international community to protect the citizens of a state which is either unwilling or unable to do so itself since that principle was established by the September 2005 UN summit. If the UN fluffs or fudges this test, the value of that breakthrough in international practice will be frittered away. If, on the other hand, the UN is able to give practical effect to that principle while working with the African Union, even late in the day, then many others in different parts of the world may be spared the fate suffered by the people of Darfur.
	In conclusion, it would be in order for a word of praise to be offered to the African Union for its decision to decline to allow President al-Bashir of Sudan to assume its presidency for the second year running. That decision, together with the choice of the democratically elected President of Ghana, is surely a sign of maturity and good judgment, justifying our real confidence in and support for the African Union. It also sends a strong message to the Government of Sudan that if they want to achieve international respectability and recognition, they must co-operate with the international community, not defy it. Let us hope that that message is received and acted upon.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Alton for once again bringing the tragedy of Darfur to our attention. He has cited the chilling details of what is happening there so comprehensively that not much more information needs to be added. I emphasise my strong support for his request for targeted sanctions, such as no-fly zones or the denial of visas to official representatives of the regime in Khartoum. I also support his plea for a greater disinvestment campaign. Such a campaign, implemented by official bodies and other influential groups such as churches, helped to bring an end to apartheid. I often wonder why we have been so slow to effect such a policy against the brutal regime in Khartoum, which benefits from international recognition and foreign investment even as it continues to kill its own people.
	I therefore ask the Minister why Her Majesty's Government give official invitations and red-carpet treatment to personnel such as the chairman of the Khartoum Chamber of Commerce. What will it take for Her Majesty's Government to refrain from doing business with those in Khartoum perpetrating their genocidal policies, with 2 million dead and 4 million displaced before the Darfur conflict, which has killed more people than the tsunami?
	As my noble friend indicated, I shall focus on some of the grave implications of the fall-out of the war in Darfur for the rest of Sudan. While resources and media attention are focused almost exclusively on Darfur, other dire and dangerous situations go unreported and unaddressed. As my noble friend said, I was in southern Sudan just l0 days ago for nearly two weeks, and saw many of the problems of the aftermath of decades of intense war: a devastated infrastructure of roads and public services such as healthcare and an urgent need for education for a generation of children denied access to schools, both during the war and today. There is also widespread concern that the Government in Khartoum are denying the south the resources needed for reconstruction to create disaffection with the Government of southern Sudan. They are thereby undermining the peace process by supporting militants and encouraging a process of Islamisation through strategic interventions.
	The lack of adequate healthcare was reflected in one of the most horrifying discoveries of our visit. In eastern Upper Nile, we were surrounded by naked children with severe malnutrition and preventable and treatable diseases who were receiving no treatment. Even more shocking was the discovery of leprosy. We took photographs and case studies to the leprosy centre in Yei, where staff agreed with the diagnosis of leprosy, which is possibly of pandemic proportions in eastern Upper Nile. In central Equatoria, we found people dying from other treatable diseases, such as measles and meningitis or from complications in childbirth because of lack of medical care or access to hospital. The problems caused by such acute shortages of essential resources are exacerbated by an influx of refugees from Darfur who, having fled from the horrors there, find further suffering in the devastation and deprivations of the south.
	It is also feared that the Government in Khartoum are deliberately and systematically destabilising the south by supporting militias and instigating recent outbreaks of fighting such as that in Malakal and the massacre outside Juba last October. Moreover, the large-scale immigration of newcomers from east Africa raises fears that some new immigrants represent a militant and strategic Islam which will affect the demographic structure of the south, changing its religious and ethnic composition before the referendum to determine its future, and therefore possibly affecting the outcome of that referendum. The south is in a geographically vulnerable position with Khartoum's influence on every border: there are many al-Qaeda militants in east Africa; on the southern border, the so-called Lord's Resistance Army, which is supported by Khartoum, is sustaining its terrorist policies in northern Uganda and southern Sudan, wreaking havoc; the genocidal conflict in Darfur is to the north; and Ethiopian militant rebels, also supported by Khartoum, are destabilising the eastern borderlands.
	The people of southern Sudan are Christians, Muslims and traditional believers, who have generally lived in peaceful coexistence. However, during recent years, they have been forced to defend a front line against a militant Islam that would overrun southern Sudan and rapidly spread further. It has been claimed that it is only the resistance by southern Sudan that is preventing the Islamisation of the rest of Africa, down to Cape Town. For that reason there are real fears that the Government in Khartoum, having destroyed the way of life of the people of Darfur and left destroyed communities and structures everywhere, will do everything possible to prevent the development of a peaceful, stable, prosperous and democratic south.
	Therefore, the challenges confronting the south, such as the provision of adequate resources to rebuild devastated lands and lives, need to be addressed urgently if the peace, which was won at such a price, is not going to be lost in another war or exploited to fulfil an Islamist agenda that could spread not only through Sudan, but far beyond in Africa. I hope that the Minister will reassure the House that Her Majesty's Government are addressing these problems and will not allow the focus on the horrors of Darfur totally to distract attention from the perilous and parlous state of much of the rest of Sudan.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, we owe a tremendous debt to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has been indefatigable in raising the question of Darfur since before he went to the territory in 2004. He has repeatedly raised the matter in this House and never more graphically or passionately than he did this evening in a speech that was somewhat critical of the United Nations. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will give us a frank analysis of why it is taking so long to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1706, which was passed five months ago to strengthen UNMIS. In spite of the grave deterioration of the security and humanitarian positions in Darfur, the Security Council has yet to take firm action to shore up the AU force, to provide some protection for civilians facing attacks by Sudanese warplanes and the Janjaweed, or to bring greater pressure to bear on Khartoum than it has done so far to facilitate the deployment of the hybrid force, to which Khartoum agreed last August.
	Last week, the Leader of the House said that the new UN Special Representative for Darfur, Mr Jan Eliasson, was visiting the region and once his report was received, that would be the opportunity for the Security Council to look at the issue again. In fact, Mr Eliasson left Khartoum on 15 January, and there is still no sign of action by the Security Council or of any report to the Security Council by the Secretary-General based on Mr Eliasson's advice. Meanwhile, Sudanese bombers are killing villagers, displaced people are being attacked in the camps and, increasingly, aid workers and UN civilians are being physically assaulted and arrested by Khartoum's troops. The Minister, who has just returned from the African Union summit—as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out—will, no doubt, be able to tell us something about the timing of the next moves and what we can expect from the Security Council.
	The Secretary-General has expressed deep concern about the renewed use of bombers and has condemned the attacks on UN personnel and NGO and AU staff. It is worth reminding ourselves that over the past six months, 30 NGO and UN compounds have been attacked by armed groups, 12 aid workers have been killed, five are missing, and hundreds of staff have had to be relocated for their own protection. However, their plight is as nothing compared with the decimation of the population. According to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, 400,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million have been displaced. In addition, there are 90,000 displaced people in eastern Chad and 150,000 in the Central African Republic. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked what the United Nations is doing about those situations. I am aware that the Security Council and the AU have been looking at the inter-relationship between those conflicts because there was a presidential statement on 16 January about the continuing instability along the borders between the three states that referred to the preliminary recommendations on the deployment of a multi-dimensional United Nations presence in Chad and the Central African Republic and called for a report by the middle of February on the size, structure and mandate of such a presence. Is that work being aligned, as far as possible, with the planning for the hybrid force in Darfur and would it be sensible to look at common logistics for the three operations?
	Last August, following al-Bashir's refusal to accept a UN peacekeeping force in Darfur, the Security Council decided to strengthen the existing AU force by adding to it 17,300 military, 3,300 police and 16 formed police units. No timetable was laid down for the deployment of these reinforcements, but three months went by and the only sign of movement was an agreement to set up a tripartite mechanism between the UN, the AU and Sudan to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1706 but in practice allowing Sudan a veto on the injection of any further international peacekeeping forces into Darfur. President al-Bashir wrote to the UN Secretary-General on 23 December reiterating his agreement to the first two stages of the UN proposal, but even the first stage of the proposal, the light support package, has yet to be completed because of Sudanese obstruction. It is expected that by tomorrow only 47 UN military, 30 police and 10 civilians will have arrived, with another 20 scheduled to arrive by the end of January, which is about half the total numbers projected in the first phase of the operation.
	On 24 January, the UN Secretary-General wrote to President al-Bashir setting out the proposals for phase 2, which had been previously agreed by the UN and AU. At every stage, permission has to be sought from Khartoum. Even then, the arrangements for the transit of people and goods have to be accepted by Khartoum one at a time. At the tripartite meeting on 24 January, the discussion focused entirely on the implementation of the LSP, and when the Secretary-General met President al-Bashir last Sunday, he received no answer concerning the phase 2 proposals. The next chance to discuss that will not be until 7 February, and it would be useful to have the Minister's assessment of the way forward. Are we going to have this perpetual postponement for weeks at a time of the arrangements for each of these phases?
	If the Sudanese continue to insist that the troops for the hybrid force must only be Africans, I suggest that the African states which have provided contingents to UNMIL, UNOCI and MONUC might be able to help, as those operations prepare to wind down; though in the near future, it will be very hard to expand the Darfur operation while at the same time getting a new peacekeeping operation under way in Somalia. President al-Bashir has insisted also, in his letter to the Secretary-General of 23 December, that the finalisation of the plans for the hybrid operation have still to be negotiated, including the size of the force. One obstacle has been cleared out of the way, as your Lordships have already heard in the debate, in that President al-Bashir will not become president of the AU for the next year; but it looks as though he is playing for time until the AMIS mandate runs out at the end of June.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that the United Nations must take a robust line against the killers and the bullies who are holding a whole people to ransom. A few Apache ground attack helicopters would do wonders against the Janjaweed. If only a non-African state could provide such munitions, they could nevertheless be operated under the AU/UN memorandum of understanding of 25 November 2006. Experience shows clearly that when the hybrid force goes in, it needs a mandate that allows far more active military protection of civilians.
	Over the past three and a half years, as the crisis has escalated, it has been considered necessary to use kid gloves with the Sudanese Government over Darfur—first, to get their co-operation on signing the CPA, and, latterly, on implementing it. The time has come when the UN cannot allow Khartoum to block effective means of stopping mass murder and ethnic cleansing.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, my noble friend has again done us and Sudan a service in drawing the acute humanitarian crisis in Darfur to our attention. He did so in Questions last week and has done so again today. The crisis afflicts not only refugees and displaced people but also humanitarian workers. It is of a different quality. UN agency appeals are coming out of Africa all the time, but it is rare to see a distress call such as we saw from 13 UN agencies on 17 January. They said that repeated military attacks, shifting front lines and the fragmentation of armed groups had compromised safe humanitarian access to the victims of the crisis, and that the,
	"humanitarian community cannot indefinitely assure the survival of the population in Darfur if insecurity continues".
	This war appears to be beyond anyone's control.
	My noble friend has already given the House the figures that show the appalling scale of suffering. Last week it was reported that another 5,000 people had fled their homes in west Darfur to seek refuge in two camps around El Geneina, adding to the millions displaced. Several violent incidents were reported in Darfur during the weekend following the UN appeal. According to the United Nations mission, an Antonov plane bombed Ein Siro, near Kutum, killing two civilians and livestock. The same day a UN contractor and an international NGO staff member were abducted. Earlier that weekend Sudanese government police officers had attacked staff from the United Nations, from the African Union mission and seven NGOs in south Darfur. The attack on 20 staff and the subsequent arrests of some of them occurred in the state capital of Nyala, where they were apparently attending a social gathering.
	I spoke to an aid worker this evening who said that there was no respite from banditry, theft and attacks on NGO vehicles and other property; indeed these attacks are worsening. I hesitate to use the word "routine" but these routine attacks, especially continued aerial bombardment, which others have mentioned, once again call into question the Government of Sudan's ability to govern and their good faith in assisting the international community with humanitarian work in Darfur, including the return to peace talks.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, 12 relief workers have been killed in the past six months, more than in the previous two years combined. Their loss has directly hit humanitarian operations. The killing of three government water engineers in west Darfur in July 2006, for example, meant an immediate if temporary suspension of water and sanitation activities in the camps. Nine workers from the same government department were abducted in November, and five are still missing. The proportion of the affected population of Darfur judged "accessible" according to UN security standards has dropped to just 64 per cent, which apparently is the lowest access rate since 2004.
	The UN agencies say quite plainly that they cannot indefinitely assure the survival of the population. That is a stern warning. They, like the rest of us, are looking for immediate concrete steps from the signatories, and the non-signatories, of the Darfur peace agreement towards a peaceful settlement and the respect of international humanitarian law. I join my noble friend in asking the Government whether they will say to NATO that a no-fly zone could be an effective sanction if the Government of Sudan continue to resist the deployment of the strong phase 3 AU/UN hybrid peacekeeping force.
	I do not believe that the time has come for us to pull out of Sudan. We still have a lot of important British interests in Khartoum and our influence has been notable in helping to achieve the comprehensive peace agreement in the south, which is gradually bringing back hope to the people.
	As treasurer of the All-Party Group on Sudan, I am concerned that the Sudanese people and their Government should know that they have friends in this Parliament, and that the British public should be informed as soon as possible of events and opportunities coming up in Sudan. But the Government of Sudan's failure to assist humanitarian agencies and their recent hostility towards some of them—notably the suspension by the Humanitarian Aid Commission last year of the well respected Sudan Social Development Organization—make it hard for the friends of Sudan to speak positively about developments in the country as we would like to do.
	This is not the time to make new suggestions about the intractable peace process, and I hope that the Minister will use every possible minute remaining to describe his recent experience. We should recognise that behind the scenes there are many experts from the embassies, the African Union and the UN working to get the talks going again, and it is no easy task. I will confine myself to a few questions. Can the Minister confirm that the Darfur-Darfur Dialogue and Consultation (DDDC) is a process towards a new peace agreement and must not be associated too closely with the old DPA, which is now discredited? Does he also agree that to avoid the mistakes of the last time there must be a greater effort not just to inform people but to ensure the fullest participation of local people through tribal leaders, mosques and local organisations? That was one of the failures of the last round which caused everything to fall apart.
	Can the Minister tell us which European countries are now actively engaged in the process, whether China has been approached and is included, and whether the dialogue process of the African Union is adequately funded? Finally, can the UK do anything to protest against the restrictions by the Humanitarian Aid Commission—which seem to contradict its terminology—on access to Darfur and its latest refusal even to issue or renew visas to development agencies working there?

Lord Luce: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Alton on launching this debate, with his remarkable sense of timing, in the week when the African Union is meeting in Ethiopia. This is the first time that I have had a chance to participate in a debate on Sudan. It is very impressive to see the knowledge, passion and concern shown by noble Lords.
	My interest goes back as far as 1947, when, at the age of 11, I flew out to Sudan in the school holidays to join my father, who served there for 25 years and helped to pull down the flag on 1 January 1956, on the independence of Sudan. Later, as a Minister of State, I had the privilege of visiting that country two or three times. Anyone who has had any dealings with the Sudanese, north or south, has great affection and respect for them.
	The people of Sudan have suffered too much devastation and loss of life in the past several decades. If the Sudanese Government can have been persuaded, after a great deal of pressure, agony and loss of life, eventually to settle in the south, they must be persuaded to settle in Darfur as well. As so many of my noble friends have said, it is right that we—and the Sudanese, above all—should expect the international community to continue to press vigorously, first, to alleviate the humanitarian crisis, but secondly and equally importantly, to find a longer-term solution and a greater, better framework for stability in Darfur.
	The conflict stems from a lethal mixture of problems. First, there is the long-term problem: the rivalry for land and water between the settled farmers and the riverine tribes against the pressure, moving southwards, of the nomadic people. At a young age, I had experience of that as the last British district officer to join the Kenya Administration in the northern province of Kenya, with the Somali nomads pushing south and pressing for water and land, often creating violence. It is the job of any Government in those circumstances to hold the ring and to keep the peace. That is not happening in Darfur.
	An additional problem is that this area has been marginalised for a long time, lacks water and has been treated as a backwater, with no proper participation in regional or national government, a problem fuelled during the past 10 or 15 years by the pressure from theocratic Islamic ideology—in the 1990s in particular—and now with the subjugation of the people by the Sudanese Government, using the Janjaweed as their weapon. The consequence, as we all know, is the disaster that we see in front of us, another shameful human disaster. Two thousand villages have been destroyed, at least 2.5 million people have been displaced, at least 200,000 refugees have gone across the border to Chad, and at least 200,000 people—probably many more—have been killed.
	In this post-imperial age, what is required in such crises is the vigorous mobilisation of international influence and support, both to deal with the humanitarian crisis and to provide a longer-term framework for the people to live in peace. I am sure that my noble friends are right to have stressed in this debate that we must look to the regional powers—the region itself—to take the lead. For that reason, I join everyone else in saying that it is good that they have taken the decision that President al-Bashir should not be the chairman of the African Union. Then the regional powers need the support of the United Nations. It is good that in Ethiopia the new UN Secretary-General said that he wanted to take the lead in that area. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister on that.
	Beyond all that, we need all the time to analyse what the rest of the international community can do, using what influence it has. I ask myself and the Minister what moderate Arab Governments are doing and saying, because it should cause Arab leaders deep embarrassment and shame when they see what Arab people are doing to each other and to African people in Darfur.
	By contrast, I ask the Minister also to say something about China, which my noble friend Lord Alton mentioned and which has growing influence in Sudan. As we know, it is the biggest investor in oil; it has built the pipeline to the Red Sea; it has invested US$8 billion in the oil exploration contracts. Sudan imports products from China on an enormous scale: 14 per cent of all imports to the country come from China. China therefore has growing influence; it can bring benefits to Africa and Sudan, but it can also do harm. We see the evidence that it has propped up corrupt dictators—I cite Zimbabwe as the best example—and it is today propping up President al-Bashir.
	The great country of China is becoming a great power. We are entitled to look to it to show more statesmanship and leadership. I hope that the Government are being vigorous in embarking on a dialogue with the Chinese Government—I hope that the Minister can say something about that—to influence them to play a constructive role. The people of Sudan deserve a better deal than they have.

Lord Chidgey: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on bringing this debate before us tonight and on the most eloquent and forceful way in which he made the points to which we all listened and to which so many noble Lords have responded with equal concern.
	This is an ongoing debate. Only recently, on 26 January, the Secretary of State for International Development, Mr Hilary Benn MP, issued a statement in response to the arrest of 20 UN, NGO and AU staff by the Sudanese police and national security on 19 January. He commented on their subsequent verbal and physical abuse, including sexual assault:
	"I utterly condemn these appalling attacks by the Sudanese authorities on those who are in Darfur to help the victims of the terrible conflict there. The Government of Sudan has an obligation to uphold the human rights and fundamental freedoms to which it is committed by both peace agreements and international convention".
	On 23 January, in your Lordships' House, my noble friend Lady Northover asked a Question about the response of the UK Government to the UN's warning that its agencies were having difficulty holding the line on Darfur. The Lord President of the Council, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, replied:
	"We are extremely worried about the humanitarian situation".
	She also said:
	"I utterly condemn the rising violence ... against aid workers ... struggling to deliver vital assistance to nearly 4 million people".—[Official Report, 23/1/07; col. 1002.]
	One cannot but agree absolutely with that condemnation and those sentiments, but we must press for action to match that condemnation. We need to be seen to be doing more than joining in the collective wringing of hands. The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, called for all sides to provide safe and unhindered access throughout Darfur. She also noted that movement was slow in consolidating a ceasefire in a renewed political process and on the hybrid AU/UN peacekeeping force to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred.
	Will the Minister tell your Lordships' House whether there have been any signs in the past seven or 10 days of the Government of Sudan recognising any of their obligations, and any signs of a quickening of the movement on the issues to which the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, drew attention in your Lordships' House? I ask this in the light of two important events in relation to Darfur and Sudan in those seven to 10 days. First, and in particular, the African Union has again bypassed Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir in his bid to become chairman of the African Union because of the conflict in Darfur, as a result of enormous pressure from other African countries, the international community, aid agencies and so forth against the president's campaign.
	Secondly, Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary-General, made a speech at the AU summit in Addis Ababa—the Minister attended that summit and may well have heard him in person—in which he called for the African Union to show a unity of purpose in bringing peace to Darfur. As war-torn Darfur is now considered to be the largest humanitarian crisis in the world, there is an urgent call for Africa's leaders to show the same unity of purpose and partnership with the UN that brought peace to Burundi and Sierra Leone. Mr Ban went on to say:
	"How Africa fares in reaching the Millennium Goals is a matter of life and death for millions of Africans. It is also a test of the ability of the UN to carry out the mandate our membership has given us. It will be one of my priorities to ensure that we meet that test and I will strengthen the organisation of the UN accordingly".
	Will the Minister tell us whether he agrees that if, as the UN says, Darfur is the world's largest humanitarian crisis, it is a touchstone to achieving the unity and commitment for which Mr Ban is calling? By the same token, should it not be the focus of additional UN resources that strengthening the organisation must imply? Does he also agree that the UK Government could, and I suggest should, address the effectiveness of the UN Human Rights Council? Is the Minister aware that the effectiveness of that council has been at issue since the rift developed between western members and African and Islamic states? Does he think that the council carries less weight now on this issue, particularly given its new composition? Does he therefore agree that the UK Government could be pressing the council to do more, outside as well as inside Darfur? Should the United Kingdom be pressing the council to use its special procedures mechanisms to do more than simply appoint its country-specific rapporteur to investigate human rights abuses in-country in Sudan after receiving an invitation to do so, in due course reporting internally to the council? Should not the United Kingdom press the Human Rights Council to act now, without waiting for an invitation, by appointing a thematic rapporteur to investigate the wealth of evidence already in existence outside Darfur on extra-judicial killings and the violation of women, which continues to be rampant in Darfur?
	Most importantly, should not the United Kingdom Government emphasise that the benefits of having a thematic rapporteur who reports independently on the council's investigations and publishes its reports to the international community—not just internally reporting to the Human Rights Council, from whence it may never emerge—is a far more effective way of keeping the issues of Darfur on the centre of the international stage?

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for giving the House the opportunity to debate this important topic. I also echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in praising the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his tireless work in trying to secure peace in Darfur. Much has been written and said in the media about the crimes of humanity occurring every day in the region of Darfur and the surrounding areas, but very little has been said on how these are to be stopped.
	As we have heard in this debate, the Sudanese Government must take a great deal of the responsibility for allowing the crisis to get to this state and for preventing the international community from taking steps to resolve it. It is very sad that more than 12 years after the genocide in Rwanda and more than 15 years after the genocide in the former Yugoslavia, international institutions are still not able to mobilise quickly and effectively to prevent similar crimes occurring in Sudan. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, opened this debate with a graphic description of the Sudanese Government's contempt and defiance, as he described it, of the international community.
	The militias, which are armed and given air support by the Sudanese Government, have perpetuated much of the violence towards civilians in Darfur and have led to the mass exodus of people from the area to overcrowded and ill-equipped refugee camps. The wilful obstruction and even expulsion of aid agencies operating there by the Government ensures that even these places of refuge are unable to offer much protection. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was right to describe this as one of the greatest humanitarian manmade crises facing the international community.
	Last year, there was a glimmer of hope when the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1706. This provided a clear duty on the international community to protect civilians under Chapter VII and authorised the deployment of UN troops into Darfur to stem the violence. It is doubly disappointing that this resolution has achieved so little, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out. If all it takes to prevent the UN enforcing Security Council resolutions is for the president of the culpable country to say "No, I don't want to let you in", we will never achieve anything. So what steps are Her Majesty's Government taking to enforce this resolution? How are those responsible for the violence ever to be held to account before the International Criminal Court if the UN has so little power? The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who is just back from two weeks in southern Sudan, in a very eloquent speech, gave the House some shocking examples of what this brutal regime is doing there.
	The consultation between the UN and the Sudanese Government, with the involvement of the African Union, was intended to find a way through the impasse. It was to decide how UN troops could support and reinforce African Union troops on the ground. Instead, it seems to have resulted in the effective dismissal of the resolution. Certainly it does not look as if UN troops will be on the ground in meaningful numbers or with any command independence any time soon.
	It is all very well to say that these things take time, but as time passes and nothing is done, the violence grows and spreads, and yet more people suffer. The longer it takes for UN troops to be deployed in Darfur, the worse the situation will become, and the less chance the UN will have of resolving the crisis. Can the Minister reassure the House that initiatives at the UN level will achieve something and that this Government are using every means at their disposal to keep the pressure up? In a Statement on international development in July, the Secretary of State mentioned the need for,
	"an integrated UN humanitarian system that responds faster when crisis strikes".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/06; col. 1493.]
	What steps have been taken to achieve this?
	It is unfortunate that the failings of the UN are being highlighted because of the failings of another international institution, the African Union. The lack of competence of this body is clear; its troops are unable to maintain the peace in Darfur while suffering under poor command, limited logistics and low morale. In the DfID report, Making Governance Work for the Poor, Her Majesty's Government promised to work actively to increase the capacity of organisations such as the AU. It would appear that any steps the Government might have taken to improve the AU's capacity have been woefully ineffective. I, like all other speakers, also applaud the AU's decision this week to give the chair to Ghana and not to Sudan. I hope that this will send a strong signal to the Government in Khartoum as to how their actions in Darfur are viewed by many other countries.
	The crisis in Darfur is not an isolated situation. It is already affecting neighbouring countries via refugees, and now we are seeing cross-border attacks on refugee camps in Chad. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, spoke of the "distress call" sent out by the aid agencies. There are also worrying signs that Darfur is destabilising the fragile peace in south Sudan. Can the Minister reassure the House that Her Majesty's Government are doing everything possible to prevent that region also falling back into civil war with all the attendant horrors and deaths that that will entail?
	The situation at the grass roots is no more optimistic than at the international or national levels. The recent arrests of 20 relief workers, accompanied by beatings and sexual assault, show the difficulties of even non-military intervention and aid. This atmosphere of violence and lawlessness is leading not only to immense difficulties for aid agencies and NGOs, but is also perpetuating and deepening a culture of violence and discrimination against women. There has already been a great deal of concern about women's rights in Sudan. There are very few countries where female genital mutilation is so widely practised, and women remain unequal under even the letter of the law, let alone the practice. The use of mass rape as a weapon of war and a method of destroying communities has been appallingly effective in traumatising families and I have nothing but admiration for the people who are attempting to help those in the refugee camps and the remaining villages, but they need far more than supportive words from this country. Are we working with human rights groups in Sudan to address the enormous inequalities suffered by women and other vulnerable groups, even in the more peaceful areas of the country?
	I look forward to the Minister's response and hope that he will be able to show the House some concrete advances made by the international community towards securing peace in Darfur. As the noble Lord, Lord Luce, said, the people of Darfur have suffered too much devastation and too much loss of life.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the House has rightly thanked the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for once again raising these vital issues. I join in that and thank all other noble Lords who have spoken. This has to be one of the top concerns for all of us world wide, and as the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said in his closing remarks, we have little time to get this right. The Government remain gravely concerned about Sudan and about Darfur in particular, and about achieving a resolution to the crisis. It is one of our highest foreign policy priorities. I feel strongly about this, as noble Lords will know, from my own experiences of Darfur and of Juba in the south, where I have seen many of the same things described by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I share her sense of horror. I have just returned from the African Union summit in Addis Ababa and I want to share with the House some of the stark realities as they are today. Indeed, I will be going back to Africa tomorrow night to continue some of this work.
	I held discussions in Addis Ababa with a number of African leaders, including President Konare of the African Union and Foreign Minister Lam Akol of Sudan, and with representatives of all the regional neighbours who were available, which unfortunately did not include Chad.
	This response to your Lordships' debate must be utterly hard-headed. I start by welcoming John Kufuor's election. He is a decent man who will be good for the AU. The AU has been trying to build a solid international reputation for decades; it could have lost it in half an hour.
	The Government are at the forefront of the international efforts to resolve the Darfur conflict and to sustain the increasingly fragile north-south peace, achieved at the cost of so many lives. I will return to that point. We are the largest bilateral donor to Darfur. So far we have contributed £190 million and our commitment remains undiminished. In addition to providing aid, our aim is also to achieve peace and security through a viable political process. The noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Luce, referred to the international community's responsibilities in this endeavour in the region. It is, of course, the international community and the regional communities that we need to be active.
	The basis of a peace agreement was signed in Abuja in the first week of last May, with the important involvement throughout of my right honourable friend Hilary Benn MP. It agreed a ceasefire, although not all of the rebel forces signed; set out a path of reconstruction and compensation; and provided for AMIS, the AU force, to step up peace and security arrangements. Whatever may be said, AMIS had for some time done a job which was very hard and demanding, and that should be acknowledged. The Government of Sudan agreed to disarm the Janjaweed.
	However, significant terms of the agreement were breached more or less immediately and it became clear that, after a more diligent start than is sometimes acknowledged, the AMIS force became too weak. It was too poorly led and without a strong enough mandate. All of that is true, and all of it has been said by the African Union itself. AMIS could not halt the growing violence of the Government of Sudan, the Janjaweed or the many rebel groups. Let us be clear: they all have blood on their hands—mostly the blood of innocent Darfurians; AU troops, many of whom have been killed; and NGO staff.
	The Government took the lead again last August in the negotiations at the Security Council that led to Resolution 1706, which mandated a strong and effective UN peacekeeping force. We did not achieve the support of China and Russia although, in the final analysis, they did not oppose it. As the issue of China has been raised by many noble Lords, I should inform the House that we are in constant dialogue with the Chinese about what they can do. Even if they look at the situation in the narrowest commercial sense, the instability of the country must make their investments look, day by day, more liable to fall apart than succeed. But China is also now a great world power, and with that comes a responsibility which goes further than commercial interests.
	More critically, the Government of Sudan refused to consent, after the UN resolution, to a UN mission. It was clear from African Union forces and their commanders in the area that if there was to be an African force, or a predominantly African force—which of course is the ideal—it would not be able to fight its way across and into Sudan. That is not a possibility in the present circumstances.
	Several UN ministers worked on this matter in New York and later in Khartoum, but President al-Bashir has been adamant. Indeed, his helicopter gunships, fixed-wing Antonov bombers and ground troops, in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1591 and all subsequent agreements, have, with Janjaweed help, continued to kill and maim. But they are not the only people to have done so; so have the rebel groups.
	The international community sought another viable way, trying to move forward as the fighting spread again into Chad, as has been said, and the Central African Republic, trailing displaced and destitute people in its wake. On 16 November 2006, Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for International Development, attended a prolonged negotiation in Addis Ababa, chaired by Kofi Annan, between the Government of Sudan and the international community. It agreed another way forward: first, an effective ceasefire; secondly, a renewed political process; thirdly, effective peacekeeping forces to monitor both. It also needed a stronger mandate, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, and that was also agreed.
	The negotiation ended with al-Bashir's opposition to the UN remaining firm. It was agreed that the peacekeeping required a three-phase system with UN involvement, starting with a light package of advisers to AMIS. As the noble Lord said, that is happening, but slowly. However, we might as well be blunt and honest about this: that is because the UN has moved painfully slowly, as well as because of al-Bashir's confrontational attitude.
	Still, growing numbers are now in Darfur in the light package. A heavy mission is next, with significant numbers of UN troops, preferably from Africa, to bolster AMIS. Negotiations are relatively well advanced on that, but again there is a lack of urgency on all sides, including at the UN, over critical issues such as the funding of such a force. Finally, the aim of the Addis negotiation is a hybrid AU/UN force for Darfur of about 17,000 troops and 3,000 police, with serious command and control, logistics backup, heavy lift including helicopters and agreed systems of troop rotation. We and our allies stand ready to back that, although we would have preferred a straightforward UN force—as would the AU.
	Discussions on this issue are also plainly too slow. I know that it breaks new ground at the UN to fund troops of another organisation—the AU, in this case—but a bureaucratic argument about that would be unforgivable. Ban Ki Moon, the new Secretary-General, has promised new energy and greater effort. I intend to go on behalf of the Government to New York to press this vigorously. People cannot be allowed to continue to die against the backdrop of arcane exchanges about funding modalities. These issues have to be resolved.
	President al-Bashir agreed the outline plan I have described, and some things have moved, as I have said—but his aircraft are still hitting civilians and seem well co-ordinated with militias, from whom not one weapon has been removed. The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, asks, reasonably enough, whether there are any signs of progress. Foreign Minister Lam Akol told me last Friday that the Government of Sudan will not meet their Abuja commitments while the rebels continue to fight. No one will be disarmed, whatever the promises, and, he says, against this dire background, and despite everything we may think in your Lordships' House, everything is going very well in Darfur. There is no real violence, plenty of food, no NGO in peril. Someone described that to me as a senior Minister being in denial. I must tell your Lordships' House that my view is far darker than that.
	The timetable is clear: the light force now, while the heavy force is intended in the spring—probably April, if it can be funded properly. The hybrid UN process is still under discussion for the reasons I have described. In the mean time, the United Kingdom has pledged a further £15 million to AMIS to keep it going. So far we have given AMIS £67 million, and we are pressing everyone else in the European Community and elsewhere.
	We are backing the UN/AU peace initiative to bring the rebel forces back to negotiation. It needs the sort of machinery the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, described, but that is potentially there, led by Jan Eliasson and Dr Salim Salim. Our special representative to Sudan, Christopher Prentice, is there in full support, and that work has started—too slowly, but it has started.
	Leaders of the Sudan Liberation Movement are meeting with the intention of reunifying their fragmenting movement. We support the UN Secretary-General's assessment mission to Chad to consider how to introduce the peacekeeping force there. The report is expected in February. I do not believe there will be much integration because of the objections of the Sudan, but that is no reason not to protect the people of Chad.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, anticipating that this would probably be the answer, I asked whether there could be common logistics between the operations in CAR, Chad and Darfur, because all the difficulties that have been caused in supplying the AU forces in Darfur could be overcome if a supply route was established through Chad or CAR.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the routes through CAR are long and tortuous, as I am sure everybody who looks at the maps will see. President al-Bashir has said that anything that comes in through Chad is unacceptable: this is still a problem.
	The second major area that has been discussed this evening is the appalling abuses against humanitarian organisations. The Government share that concern. We support the establishment of the International Commission of Inquiry, although it will find exactly what has been described this evening. We sponsored UNSCR 1593 in March 2006, referring Darfur to the ICC. We support the ICC investigations. In response to a question asked this evening, I can say that we are expecting the prosecutions against two of the four indictees to begin in the next few weeks—it may even be a couple of weeks.
	On 14 December, the ICC prosecutor highlighted evidence of large-scale civilian massacres and sexual violence. As I have said, he will put the first cases, which came from 2003-04, to the ICC judges in the coming month. Khartoum has been told repeatedly—and I repeat it tonight—that we will back the ICC wherever its investigations lead and into the future.
	I shall be totally clear: I hope for UN progress. I prefer a solution to the empty opportunity to bewail the facts and then later say, "Well, we all told you so". But the facts must be faced. On 17 January, the UN country team released a statement which highlighted increasing vicious attacks against humanitarian personnel. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to those people. Their courage leaves me almost without words to describe what they go through. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, made the same point about their quality and durability. Figures on how many personnel have been killed have been mentioned already. Others have been beaten, raped, intimidated and robbed. Last December, the NGO Action Contre La Faim was forced to withdraw from Geraida in south Darfur. It was attacked by rebels, not by the Government of Sudan. This January, UN and NGO staff in Nyala, the capital of south Darfur, were savagely attacked, on this occasion by the Sudanese police—everybody is engaged in this business. Their allies in the Janjaweed attacked southern Sudan as a whole from south Darfur, placing the Sudan's comprehensive peace agreement under still greater strain. Darfur shows signs of unwinding the areas where peace has to some extent been installed.
	I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that we are working very hard on the north-south peace as a UK priority: we have to. Some progress has been made—for example, the formation of the Government of National Unity, the transfer to the south of $1.8 billion of oil revenue since 2005—but we all know that this peace remains very fragile. President al-Bashir and Vice-President Kiir must show leadership to find solutions. We will back every effort in this regard.
	One of our efforts is to try to identify and introduce to the United Kingdom people of influence in Sudan whose attitudes are relatively benign. They are not representatives of the regime, nor its puppets, but we have to build some relationships and find people with whom we can work if there is to be progress.
	I have commented on China. I have commented on the work needed to establish a substantial peace-keeping force, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said. We need to resolve the assessed contributions issue very quickly. I believe that the Fifth Committee has started work on it, but it is slow. I am insistent that it should be faster. I have made comments on the forum for some of the discussions among the rebels and about the deployments in Chad.
	I hope that I have indicated that we think that Jan Eliasson can play an important role with Dr Salim Salim in the development of a possible peace discussion. The sources of troops will remain overwhelmingly African—and I make that point for the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—although others may well be prepared to assist.
	I have tried to be painfully realistic about the issues that are faced. I want to conclude with words that I hope will be understood in this Chamber but also way beyond this Chamber. We work in this Government for a good outcome, which is shared by all parties—I do not say it is the Government alone. We call on all parties to choose the road to peace and we will help. We shall work very hard with all our partners in the international community for this goal. In Europe lots of work is being done with the Norwegians and the French and, of course, with the Commission. But we shall all, in doing this work, judge the actions of others rather than their words and blandishments.
	If President al-Bashir fails to choose a peaceful humanitarian path, he must face the consequences of making a bad choice. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, described some of those consequences, such as the potential for disinvestment, which will probably be led by businesses whether Governments urge them to or not, as they would be ethical and prudent decisions on their part. The sanctions regime; the reach of the International Criminal Court as it judges who has or continues to commit crimes of concern for the international community; and the extent of the arms embargo must all be considered. I repeat the statement of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on 22 November that we are looking at the possibility of a no-fly zone. That was something that we promised we would do in the UNGA in New York in September. It is a difficult call but it is still one that we are considering. In fact, I say tonight because I want it heard more generally that we rule out nothing in the resolution of this situation. We work for the best and are preparing for the worst.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I believe that all noble Lords will want to thank the Minister for the way in which he answered the debate and wish him Godspeed as he returns to Africa to Addis Ababa to the important talks in which he plays such a significant part. He knows that he has the whole confidence of your Lordships' House in the incredibly important work that he is undertaking. I thank all noble Lords who participated in tonight's proceedings. I am certain that we shall return to this issue again and again as the need arises.

House adjourned at 8.53 pm.